Have The Prophecies In Revelation 17-18 About Babylon Been Fulfilled? Part 6

By Andrew M. Woods

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

Τhe preceding five articles in this series demonstrated the improbability of the preterist view that Babylon in Revelation 17-18 refers to first-century Jerusalem. This final article surveys the remaining futurist possibilities for interpreting Babylon in Revelation 17-18 and shows that they are preferable to the preterist position.

Futurist Options

In general the futurist views are liberated from many of the weaknesses that plague the preterist view. All the futurist options have at least six advantages over the preterist view. First, the futurist views do not depend on an early date for the writing of the book of Revelation. Unlike the preterist position, which requires a pre-AD 70 date for the composition of Revelation, all the futurist views can be held regardless of whether the interpreter holds to a Neronian or Domitianic date for the writing of the book.[1]

Second, unlike partial preterism, which assigns a universal, future significance to terms or concepts in 20:7-15 and a local, historical understanding of these terms and concepts in 16:19-19:6, the futurist accepts a consistent universal definition of these terms regardless of where they appear in the Apocalypse. Partial preterists hold to a future bodily return of Christ, resurrection of the unsaved, and final judgment (20:7-15), but they place the remainder of Revelation’s contents in the past. Thus partial preterists are forced to attach a futuristic, global definition to certain terms, phrases, and concepts when they appear in 20:7-15 while at the same time attaching a historical and localized understanding to identical terms and phrases in 16:19-19:6. Examples include inconsistent interpretations regarding the words “earth” or “land” (17:2; 20:11), the phrase “the book of life” (17:8; 20:12), and the merism “the small and the great” (or its equivalent) in 19:5 and 20:12.

Third, preterists have difficulty explaining how Revelation’s seemingly global language (17:15) was fulfilled in the local events of AD 70.[2] However, futurists do not face this limitation, since they understand that Babylon in chapters 17-18 is yet future and will exert a universal influence. Fourth, because the fall of Jerusalem included several years (AD 66-70) rather than something that transpired instantaneously, the preterist position is difficult to harmonize with John’s description of Babylon’s sudden fall (18:8, 10). By contrast, because futurists are not obligated to look to history for a fulfillment of John’s prophecy, they can conclude that the text’s description of Babylon’s abrupt demise refers to events associated with Christ’s future return and judgment.

Fifth, preterists also have problems explaining how first-century Jerusalem burned “forever and ever” (19:3) following her fall to the Romans.[3] But for premillennial futurism this burning could transpire throughout the one-thousand-year kingdom. True, futurists must also explain how “forever and ever” can be confined to a finite period of time such as one thousand years. But the futurist view can be supported by the fact that sometimes “forever” can refer to a limited duration (e.g., Exod. 21:6) or perhaps by the fact that Babylon’s burning could continue into the eternal state (Rev. 20:10, 15; 21:8; 22:15). However, these problems are not as insurmountable as the weaknesses of the preterist view, since Jerusalem obviously did not continue burning for any prolonged period of time following the events of AD 70.

Sixth, the credibility of the preterist view is questionable when its proponents interpret literally those aspects of chapters 17-18 that are consistent with AD 70 events while simultaneously offering a nonliteral interpretation when these chapters seem to go beyond what is known of AD 70.[4] For example preterists say that the seven mountains (17:9), one hundred pounds (16:21), and city (17:18) are literal but that the greatest earthquake in human history (16:18) is not literal. By contrast, because futurists understand Babylon of chapters 17-18 as conveying a future, universal reality, there is no vacillation between a literal and nonliteral interpretation.

Eclecticism

An eclectic view combines two or more of the preterist, idealist, historicist, and futurist schools of thought when interpreting Babylon in Revelation 17-18. For example Pate’s interpretation of these chapters incorporates both preterism and futurism:

A number of commentators, rightly in our estimation, identify the harlot with unfaithful Israel, especially Jerusalem. . . . Although historical allusions to John’s day can be detected in the seal judgments of Revelation 6, as well as throughout chapters 6-18 (e.g., cf. chap. 11, and also possibly chaps. 17-18 with the fall of Jerusalem; or note the imperial cult echoes in chaps. 13 and 18), the progressive dispensationalist believes that the ultimate fulfillment of the prophetic events contained in these chapters awaits the time of the Parousia.[5]

Although an eclectic approach is preferable to the preterist school of thought, it has several drawbacks. First, to the extent that eclecticism embraces first-century Jerusalem as part of its interpretation, it also relies on the tenuous Neronian date for the composition of the Apocalypse. Because Pate’s approach incorporates first-century Jerusalem as part of the vision’s fulfillment, his approach is as dependent on an early date of Revelation as that of any preterist who believes that all the details of Revelation 17-18 were completely fulfilled in the historic fall of Jerusalem. However, because not all eclectic advocates include first-century Jerusalem as part of the vision’s (already past) fulfillment, not all forms of eclecticism depend on the early date for the composition of the Apocalypse. For example Bock’s eclectic approach in interpreting Babylon in Revelation 17-18 avoids the early date requirement, since it involves Rome, a rebuilt Babylon, and other cities “in the sweep of history” without explicitly mentioning first-century Jerusalem.[6]

Second, the specific details of Revelation’s text do not seem to fit easily into both the past and future, as the eclectic approach presumes. Gentry explains, “It requires us to believe that many of the specific events, things, and personages of Revelation will appear repeatedly on the scene of earth history. In the same order? In the same geographic regions? With continual groupings of 144,000 being sealed? With constant beasts being designated by the same number 666? On and on I could go.”[7]

Elsewhere Gentry similarly notes, “Are we to believe that all of the details of Revelation occur twice? Two six-sealed scrolls? Two beasts? Two groups of 144,000? Two ‘two witnesses’? Two Armageddons? Two Millenniums [sic]?”[8] One could also ask, How were the specific details in Isaiah 53 repeated over multiple generations? Furthermore Balyeat questions how Christ’s prediction of a great tribulation that is never to be equaled again (Matt. 24:21) could be repeated and be transgenerational.[9] How can Christ’s prophecy of distress that is never to be equaled again be repeated? Also how can there be a recurrence of conflicting themes in a single generation such as cursing (Rev. 6-19) and blessing (Rev. 20-22)?

Third, Thomas notes that because preterism, historicism, idealism, and futurism all involve conflicting ideas, an eclectic amalgamation of them involves logical incoherence.[10] Allowing the eclectic interpreter to decide when a given system should end and another begin rests too heavily on the interpreter’s subjectivity. “The combination approach is deficient on another ground: it leaves to human judgment the determination of where the details of a text end and its general picture begins. Allowing this liberty for subjective opinion cannot qualify as an objective interpretation.”[11]

Fourth, eclecticism involves an abandonment of the traditional hermeneutical principle of single meaning.[12] Terry noted the importance of this principle. “A fundamental principle in Grammatico-historical exposition is that the words and sentences can have but one significance in one and the same connection. The moment we neglect this principle we drift upon a sea of uncertainty and conjecture.”[13] The Westminster Confession of Faith regarding the interpretation of Scripture similarly states that Scripture “is not manifold, but one.”[14] Buswell comments on the significance of this phrase as it relates to the principle of single meaning. He states, “I place emphasis on the words, ‘which is not manifold, but one.’ The notion that so specific and definite a prediction as that given in Matthew 24:15ff. and Mark 13:14ff. could be of double meaning must be vigorously rejected.”[15] Abandonment of the single meaning principle does not necessarily disprove the eclectic approach, since the issue is to determine the best way to interpret Scripture rather than how the church has traditionally interpreted Scripture. However, eclectic advocates should recognize that their methodology may find itself at odds with what many would recognize as traditional hermeneutical maxims.

Fifth, some have questioned whether the “already-not-yet” framework employed by eclectic interpreters can stretch throughout an entire book like Revelation. According to Gentry, “The already/not yet theological principle, though valid and widely accepted by evangelicals, cannot govern whole, vast, complex works such as Revelation. The already/not yet principle applies to unitary, simple constructs: the kingdom, salvation, new creation, and so forth. The principle snaps apart when we stretch it over so massive a work as Revelation.”[16]

Sixth, the eclectic approach heavily relies on Revelation’s apocalyptic content. As Collins explains, “In other Jewish apocalypses the Babylonian crisis of the sixth century often provides the filter through which later crises are viewed. The emphasis is not on the uniqueness of the historical events but on recurring patterns, which assimilate the particular crisis to some event of the past whether historical or mythical.”[17] The eclectic position proves unworkable to the extent that the interpreter accepts the differences between Revelation and apocalyptic literature that were previously enumerated.[18]

Purely Futurist Alternatives

These views hold that the prophecies concerning Babylon in Revelation 17-18 will be fulfilled exclusively in the future and have never been fulfilled in the past or present in any sense.

A religious system. Some interpreters identify Babylon of Revelation 17-18 as a religious system rather than a geopolitical place. For example Johnson observes, “Under the imagery of the great destruction of the commercial city, John describes the final overthrow of the great prostitute, Babylon. He is not writing a literal description, even in poetic or figurative language, of the fall of an earthly city, such as Rome or Jerusalem; but in portraying the description of the city, he describes God’s judgment on the great satanic system of evil that has corrupted the earth’s history.”[19]

The problem with this view is that chapters 17-18 routinely identify Babylon as a city rather than a religious system (17:18; 18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21). Thus as Dyer explains, “Whatever else is said about the harlot, she is first a city, not an ecclesiastical system.”[20] Regarding the burning of this city depicted in 17:16, Bullinger asks, “How can anything ‘mystical’ be burnt with fire?”[21] The recurring harlot imagery associated with Babylon in these chapters (17:1, 2, 4, 15, 16; 18:3, 7) also is not sufficient to disqualify her as an actual city, since the same harlot imagery is used to depict the literal cities of Tyre (Isa. 23:16-17) and Nineveh (Nah. 3:4).[22]

However, the fact that Babylon is a city in no way minimizes her religious influence. Ryrie explains, “The name is used for more than a city in these chapters; it also stands for a system. This is much the same as the way Americans speak of Wall Street or Madison Avenue. They are actual streets, but they also stand for the financial or advertising enterprises.”[23] The Tower of Babel seems to have been both a city (Gen. 11:4a) and a purveyor of a religious philosophy (v. 4b). John was probably communicating the same combination in Revelation 17-18. In this sense the city can be understood as a synecdoche (part for the whole) for the system that she represents.

A system in Revelation 17 and a city in Revelation 18. Walvoord articulates this view when he notes, “In general, however, it is helpful to consider chapter 17 as dealing with Babylon as an ecclesiastical or spiritual entity and chapter 18 as dealing with Babylon as a political entity.”[24] Thus Walvoord interprets the city in chapter 17 nonliterally[25] while interpreting the city in chapter 18 literally.[26] Proponents of this position also contend that the religious Babylon of chapter 17 is destroyed at a time different from the commercial and political Babylon of chapter 18. As Walvoord explains, “Babylon, ecclesiastically symbolized by the woman in Revelation 17, proposes a common worship and a common religion through uniting in a world church. This is destroyed by the beast in 17:16, who thus fulfills the will of God (v. 17). Babylon, politically symbolized by the great city of Revelation 18, attempts to achieve its domination of the world by a world common market and a world government. These are destroyed by Christ at His second coming.”[27]

Despite its popularity this view has several weaknesses. For example why is the word “city” (πόλις) nonliteral in 17:18 but literal in chapter 18 (vv. 10, 16, 18, 19, 21)? A further weakness is that three reasons seem to make it clear that what unites these chapters is greater than what separates them.[28] First, both chapters refer to Babylon as having the same name (17:5; 18:2), being a city (17:18; 18:10), having the same color adornment (17:4; 18:16), holding a cup (17:4; 18:6), fornicating with kings (17:2; 18:3), being drunk with the wine of immorality (17:2; 18:3), persecuting believers (17:6; 18:24), experiencing destruction by fire (17:16; 18:8), and experiencing destruction by God (17:17; 18:5, 8).[29]

Second, the larger context also supports viewing these chapters as a unit. Revelation 14:8 announces the singular destruction of Babylon, using imagery found in both chapters (fall: 17:16 and 18:2; name: 17:5 and 18:2; immorality: 17:2 and 18:3). Revelation 19:2-3 also announces the singular destruction of Babylon with imagery from both chapters (cf. 19:2 with 17:1; and 19:3 with 18:9, 18). Revelation 17-18 must also be connected to the seventh bowl, since one of the angels who had the seven bowls also gave John the revelation of Babylon (17:1). Thus as Johnson observes, “These two chapters form an extended appendix to the seventh bowl, where the judgment on Babylon was mentioned (16:19). . . . ‘One of the seven angels’ connects this vision with the preceding bowl judgments, showing that it is a further expansion or appendix of the final bowl action and not an additional event.”[30] Thus the extended context does not seem to support Babylon’s two-phase judgment as taught by the proponents of this view.

Third, most of the arguments used to prove two Babylons seem to have been answered.[31] For example according to Larkin, “The fact that the first verse of chapter eighteen says—‘after these things,’ that is after the destruction of the ‘Woman,’ what happens to the ‘City’ occurs, shows that the ‘Woman’ and the ‘City’ are not one and the same.”[32] However, the phrase “after these things” (μετὰ ταῦτα) in 18:1 can simply indicate the time sequence in which the visions were revealed to John (chronological use) rather than something that must take place later chronologically (eschatological use) because the phrase is accompanied by a verb of perception “I saw.” Whenever a verb of perception accompanies “after these things” in Revelation, the phrase is used chronologically (4:1a; 7:1; 7:9; 15:5; 19:1) rather than eschatologically (1:19; 4:1b; 9:12; 20:3).

In addition it is claimed that Babylon in chapter 17 is destroyed in a different manner and by a different source than the Babylon in chapter 18. Larkin notes that while the ten kings destroy the woman, the city of chapter 18 “is not destroyed by them but by a mighty earthquake and a fire.”[33] However, this contention is without merit because Babylon in both chapters is destroyed by fire (17:16; 18:9) and by God (17:17; 18:8). Thomas notes the destruction by fire in both chapters. Regarding 18:8 he observes that the fact that “ ‘she shall be burned up with fire’ . . . corresponds closely to . . . 17:16 and must be the same destruction.”[34]

Moreover, some writers claim that the response to the destruction of the two Babylons is different because chapter 17 records the kings hating the harlot (17:16) and chapter 18 records the kings weeping over the harlot (18:9). According to Morris, “The kings of the earth had burned Mystery Babylon, the harlot religious system, with fire, but these same kings mourn the burning of commercial Babylon (Revelation 17:16; 18:9), so obviously these are not the same burnings.”[35] Larkin echoes this point. “The ‘Woman’ is destroyed by the ‘Ten Kings,’ while the ‘Kings of the Earth’ in the next chapter, ‘bewail and lament’ the destruction of the ‘City.’ ”[36] However, this discrepancy can be explained. The kings in 17:16 are those who will unite with the beast to defeat the harlot, whereas the kings in 18:9 are those who will be engaged in commerce with Babylon and who will be mourning the loss of their source of revenue. According to Bullinger, “We have noted before that ‘the ten kings’ are never seen apart from the Beast; and ‘the kings of the earth’ are never seen apart from Babylon; it is the latter who weep and wail over her.”[37]

Also some note that the Babylon in chapter 17 is referred to as a woman whereas the Babylon in chapter 18 is referred to as a city. According to Larkin, “That the ‘Woman,’ and the ‘City’ do not symbolize the same thing is clear, for what is said of the ‘Woman’ does not apply to the city, and what is said of the ‘City’ does not apply to the woman.”[38] However, this argument collapses when one notes that 17:18 explains that the woman represents a city. According to Bullinger,

If we look at these two chapters carefully, we fail to find the distinction so persistently affirmed. Someone states a thing as a fact; and then others think they see it. There is no such thing as “Mystic Babylon.” The Babylon mentioned in chap. xvii. is the same as that in chap. xviii. It is the “Woman” which is a secret symbol or sign. But that means only that we are not to take it literally as a woman, but as “that great city,” as explained in verse 18. . . . It means, as we have seen, a secret sign, but that refers to the “Woman” as being the sign or symbol of the “city.”[39]

Finally some suggest that the reference to “another angel” (18:1) bifurcates the chapters, since this phrase is often used to introduce a new vision (10:1; 14:6, 8, 9). Larkin states, “That the two chapters refer to different things is further verified by the fact that they are announced by different angels. The events of chapter seventeen are announced by one of the ‘Vial’ Angels, while those of the eighteenth are announced by ‘another’ angel. . . .”[40] However, Revelation elsewhere also interjects the phrase “another angel” into a vision without indicating that a new vision is in view (7:2; 8:3; 14:15, 17-18).

For the preceding three reasons, it seems preferable to view these two chapters as a unit that explains the contents of the seventh bowl rather than two different destructions of Babylon. According to Osborne, “While there have been attempts to see chaps. 17 and 18 as distinct and even to see two separate ‘Babylons’ in these chapters, Dyer (1987) demonstrates well the unity of these chapters.”[41] Thus Johnson concludes, “Chapter 18 contains the description of the previously announced ‘judgment’ . . . of the prostitute (17:1). It is important not to separate this chapter from the portrayal of the prostitute in ch. 17, for there is no warrant for making the prostitute in ch. 17 different from the city in ch. 18 (cf. 17:18).”[42]

Pagan Rome. Another futurist option involves interpreting Babylon in Revelation 17-18 as a revived Roman Empire that will arise in the last days.[43] One of the main elements of this view is the notion that John’s use of Babylon is actually a code word for Rome. According to the Babylon-equals-Rome code theory, John directed against Rome the hostility that Old Testament prophets originally aimed against Babylon. Because criticism of Rome was punishable, John used a code in order to avoid detection. The comparison between Babylon and Rome is also made because of similarities between the two. Both were world empires that persecuted God’s people and destroyed the Jewish temple. Advocates of this view appeal to numerous Jewish and Christian background sources that use Babylon as a code for Rome in order to show that such cryptology was common practice in John’s day.[44] This view enjoys a significant advantage over the preterist Jerusalem view since the former is able to point to tangible extrabiblical examples of Babylon as a code for Rome, whereas the latter is unable to muster any similar examples where Babylon is used as a code for Jerusalem.[45]

However, the “pagan Rome” view has a number of weaknesses. First, although advocates of this view are able to draw from an impressive array of background sources, some of these sources seem tenuous and therefore should not be relied on too dogmatically. For example the notion that John was following the common practice of his day of using Babylon as a code word for Rome is only workable to the extent that these extrabiblical sources were either written or captured ideas that were prevalent during the general time period when John wrote Revelation. Most New Testament scholars assign a date of about AD 95 for the composition of Revelation. Obviously the further the extrabiblical source is removed from this time, the less relevant it is for supporting the Babylon-equals-Rome code theory.

For example although some items from Book 5 of the Sibylline Oracles support the Babylon-equals-Rome view, this book was written after John wrote Revelation. Although Collins seems to lean toward a first-century dating of Book 5 of the Sibylline Oracles, he also remains open to the suggestion that the book can be dated “in the early years of the second century.”[46] Kreitzer accepts the reign of Hadrian (AD 117-138) as a date for the composition of Sibylline Oracle 5.[47] The same can be said for any references to Baruch, which “seems to come from the first or second decade of the second century.”[48] Thus Thomas dates both the Apocalypse of Baruch and the Sibylline Oracles in the second century, noting that they were composed “quite a while after John wrote Revelation.”[49] Although 4 Ezra was composed about AD 100, it should be observed that Metzger remains at least open to a date for 4 Ezra as late as AD 120.[50]

The use of Babylon as a code for Rome is evident in the works of the patristic writer Tertullian (ca. 155–ca. 220). He explained, “So also Egypt is sometimes in his scriptures understood to mean the whole world, when charged with idolatry and abomination: and in the same way Babylon also in our (apostle) John is a metaphor of the Roman city, which, like Babylon, is a great and proud empire, and at war against the saints of God.”[51] However, as Thomas indicates, “Tertullian late in the second century is the first church father to use ‘Babylon’ as a name for Rome.”[52] Beagley summarizes the matter when he says, “Later Christians writers do apply the name ‘Babylon’ to Rome, but this may be a later development.”[53]

Perhaps advocates of the pagan-Rome view would argue that some of these sources using Babylon as a code for Rome are persuasive, since they were composed within twenty-five years of the Apocalypse’s composition. However, even if it could be established that the Babylon-equals-Rome code is found in some extrabiblical texts created either contemporaneously or soon after the composition of the Apocalypse, that is not proof that John was following the same practice in Revelation 17-18. According to Hitchcock, “In Revelation, the great city is specifically called ‘Babylon’ six times (see 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21). Although it might be possible that the name ‘Babylon’ is a code name for Rome . . . there is no such indication in the text. And since the Bible itself doesn’t imply that the term ought to be taken figuratively or symbolically, it is far safer to take it as referring to literal Babylon.”[54] Along these same lines Morris says that if “Paul was not afraid to speak directly about Rome in his writings, so why should John be?”[55]

Second, the pagan-Rome view relies heavily on 1 Peter 5:13 as biblical evidence that Babylon was a common code for Rome used among Christians in the general time period when John wrote Revelation, but this view is weakened by the possibility that Peter was actually in Babylon rather than Rome when he penned his first epistle.[56] Thomas writes, “Allegedly, 1 Pet. 5:13 uses Babylon in this way, and others adopted the same practice. . . . A questioning of this interpretation of 1 Pet. 5:13 which notes that the verse refers to Babylon on the Euphrates rather than Rome, greatly weakens this line of reasoning, however.”[57]

Third, another clue used to identify Babylon as Rome is obscured by the possibility, as discussed earlier, that the seven mountains in 17:9-10 do not represent the seven hills of Rome.[58] Carrington notes a further problem with the interpretation of the seven hills in 17:9. “This text, of course, is the trump card of those who hold that the Woman is Rome; in fact, it is their one strong argument. It perishes when you remember that the Heads belong to the Beast, not to the Woman, and therefore identify him, not her.”[59] Because the reference to the seven mountains (v. 9) which are seven heads (v. 7) actually belong to the beast (vv. 3, 7; 13:1) and not the woman named Babylon, these seven heads or mountains have no relationship to Babylon.

Some argue that the woman may still be associated with the seven hills because she is sitting on them. However, it is better to see this as referring to the woman’s control rather than her location. The other references to the woman sitting also refer to her control. Revelation 17:1 portrays the woman sitting on many waters. Verse 15 explains that the waters represent peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues. Thus 17:1 and 15 show the harlot’s control over the entire world. Furthermore 17:3 depicts the woman as sitting on the beast, which again indicates control rather than location. Thus if the harlot’s sitting indicates control rather than location twice in chapter 17, consistency suggests that the harlot’s sitting on the seven hills in verse 9 also indicates control rather than location.[60]

Fourth, the fact that there are two central characters in chapter 17 rather than just one should disqualify the Babylonian harlot from being identified as Rome. Most interpreters who identify the harlot as Rome also identify the beast as Rome. Gregg remarks, “That the beast from the sea is closely identified with Rome will scarcely be disputed by members of most interpretive schools.”[61] This identification is no doubt based on the dependence of the image of the beast of Revelation on Daniel 7. The beast of Revelation and the fourth beast of Daniel 7 are both noted for their blasphemies, persecutions, and ten horns. Thus commentators who identify the fourth beast of Daniel 7 with Rome must identify the beast of Revelation 17 with Rome as well.[62] Therefore the identification of the harlot as Rome is problematic because one ends up with two images for Rome in chapter 17: the beast and the harlot. Beasley-Murray embraces the notion that both entities represent Rome. “The two figures of monster and woman are really alternative representations of a single entity.”[63]

However, if these two characters represent the same city, why are they depicted as two separate entities in 17:11 and 18? Why is the beast punished in chapter 19 after the harlot has already been destroyed in chapter 18? If these two characters represent the same entity, how are they able to interact with one another? Revelation 17:3 depicts the woman as riding on the beast, so how can Rome ride on Rome? Revelation 17:16-17 depicts the beast destroying the woman. So how can Rome destroy Rome?[64]

Perhaps it is possible to propose that the dual imagery could be satisfied through Nero’s burning of Rome in AD 64. However, McGuiggan rebuts this notion when he says, “Nero set fire to Rome and the fire raged one-week without destroying all the city, but then that was a man-made fire. God’s fires burn quickly and completely.”[65] Thus the destruction portrayed in Revelation 17:16-17 cannot be a picture of Nero burning Rome because Nero did not destroy Rome in its entirety. Rather, “He merely wanted to destroy one part to clear the ground for a rebuilding project.”[66] In summary the imagery makes more sense if Rome destroyed a rival power rather than herself. This fact should caution interpreters against identifying the woman as Rome.

Fifth, Vanderwaal questions how Babylon of Revelation 17-18 can be understood as a polemic against Rome when both the New Testament (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Tim. 2:2; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13-17) and the early church adopted a submissive attitude toward Rome.[67]

Sixth, if one is persuaded by the earlier discussion that Old Testament prophecies regarding Babylon remain unfulfilled (Isa. 13-14; Jer. 50-51; Zech. 5:5-11), then interpreting Babylon of Revelation 17-18 as Rome leaves no logical place for these Old Testament prophecies to be fulfilled.[68]

Seventh, it is difficult to argue that Rome qualifies as the mother or originator of all harlotry (17:5). Rather than becoming the source or originator of all harlotry, Rome was merely one of many emulators or daughters of such harlotry that began at Babel (Gen. 11:1-9).69 Rome appeared too late on the stage of world history and world apostasy to be considered the mother of harlots.[70] “We thus see how ‘that great city,’ Babylon, founded by Nimrod, was the source of all idolatry. This is not true of Rome. Pagan Rome itself was only one system; one of the polluted streams from that corrupt source. . . . It is not possible that the part can be the whole! It is not possible that one of many streams can be the fountain-head of all streams. Was there no idolatry before pagan Rome?”[71]

Eighth, Rome did not shed the blood of all the saints, martyrs, and prophets (17:6; 18:20, 24). Ogden notes, “As a persecutor, Rome was guilty of shedding the blood of the martyrs of Jesus, the New Testament saints, but not the blood of the prophets or all that were slain upon the earth.”[72]

Ninth, some writers have challenged the view that identifies Babylon as Rome because chapters 17-18 depict seafaring commercial activity and yet Rome had no prosperous seaport.[73]

Tenth, “The references to the ‘wilderness’ or ‘desert’ in v. 3 [of Rev. 17] are inapplicable to Rome.”[74]

Eleventh, regarding John’s astonishment in 17:6 (θαῦμα μέγα), Pink asks, “Why would John, who was himself then suffering from the hatred of Rome (Pagan) wonder at Rome . . . being clothed with governmental power and glory, and drunken with the blood of saints?”[75]

Papal Rome. In this view the Roman Catholic Church is the fulfillment of Babylon in Revelation 17. Newell says, “Evidently Romanism, with its situation on the seven hills of Rome, is indicated by this woman.”[76] He adds, “This will be the end absolutely, finally, of Babylon in mystery. It is the complete destruction of the papal harlot.”[77] Peters also identifies the Babylonian harlot as Romanism in his attempt to distinguish this woman from the Antichrist. He notes “that (however much the papacy may aid in the coming of the antichrist and be with him in the initial career) this woman, delineative of the Romish church, is likewise destined (v.16) to be punished and overthrown by ‘the ten horns and the beast’ . . . by the confederation under the Antichrist as the context plainly shows.”[78] Similarly Hislop asks, “Is there one, who has candidly considered the proof that has been led, that now doubts that Rome is the Apocalyptic Babylon?”[79]

Proponents of the papal position point to various parallels between Roman Catholicism and the harlot of Revelation 17. Examples include the spiritual fornication associated with drifting away from a true form of Christianity, the amassing of wealth, illicit involvement with the kings of the earth, adornment in colorful garments, and responsibility for mass martyrdoms. Like the pagan-Rome view, the papal-Rome position is superior in comparison to the preterist Jerusalem interpretation in view of its ability to point to extrabiblical examples where Babylon is used as a code word for Rome. By contrast, the Jerusalem view is able to furnish no similar examples where Babylon is used as a code word for Jerusalem.

However, the papal-Rome position suffers from many of the same deficiencies that plague the pagan-Rome interpretation. Examples include the possibilities that (a) the extrabiblical examples that use Babylon as a code for Rome can be dated into the second century, (b) Peter was actually in Babylon when he penned 1 Peter 5:13, and (c) the seven hills (Rev. 17:9) do not describe Rome’s topography. Moreover, the papal-Rome view leaves no room for a literal fulfillment of Old Testament unfulfilled prophecies related to Babylon, fails to account for the martyrdoms prior to the advent of the papacy, creates two images for Rome in Revelation 17, and fails to satisfy John’s desert and seafaring imagery. Also, like pagan Rome, papal Rome emerges too late in history to be considered the mother or source of all harlotry (17:5).[80]

In addition to facing the same weaknesses as the pagan-Rome view, the papal-Rome view has two additional problems. First, the view might be the product of reading a crisis into the text. Tenney notes the origin of the papal interpretation.

Renewed interest in the Apocalypse was stimulated by the controversial atmosphere of the Reformation. The concepts of the antichrist beast (Rev. 13) and the harlot on the beast (Rev. 17; 18) were applied to the papacy and to Rome. Although neither Luther nor Calvin wrote commentaries on Revelation, their polemic lit[erally] employed the apocalyptic denunciations of evil in conflict with papal power. By so doing they conveyed the impression that the antichrist or beast denoted the papacy, and that with the overthrow of the papacy the consummation of the kingdom of God would be achieved.[81]

Second, the view suffers from a lack of contemporary scholarly support. According to Ogden, “Few hold this view today.”[82] Boring also observes, “Although widely held by Protestant interpreters after the Reformation and into the twentieth century, no critical New Testament scholar today advocates this view.”[83] Although truth is not always determined by majority opinion, such a paucity of scholarly support should cause interpreters to be hesitant to embrace the papal-Rome view.

Conclusion

These articles have demonstrated that the preterist position on Revelation 17-18 is fraught with so many difficulties that it remains the least preferable option in comparison with the remaining competing positions. Because the exegetical, contextual, and geographic details do not support the interpretation that Babylon of these chapters was first-century Jerusalem, interpreters are obligated to consider other options in their attempt to identify the harlot. The debate concerning the precise identification of Babylon in Revelation 17-18 will likely continue. But this interpreter along with many others remains convinced that Babylon in Bible prophecy simply means Babylon. Because the prophecies regarding Babylon in the Old and New Testaments remain largely unfulfilled, the world’s center of power must once again return to the ancient city of Babylon in order for biblical prophecies to be fulfilled. However, for now it is sufficient to say that the Babylon described in these chapters and related passages is not something that was manifested in the first century. Rather, the city of Babylon is destined to arrive on the future world scene.

Notes

1. The preterist dependence on an early date was discussed in the preceding article under the heading “Revelation’s Late Date” (“Have the Prophecies in Revelation 17-18 about Babylon Been Fulfilled? Part 5,” Bibliotheca Sacra 170 [January–March 2013]: 95-96).
2. This issue was discussed under the heading “Babylon’s Harlotry” in the first article (“Have the Prophecies in Revelation 17-18 about Babylon Been Fulfilled? Part 1,” Bibliotheca Sacra 169 [January–March 2012]: 80-89).
3. This issue and the previous one were discussed under the heading “Babylon’s Destruction” in the fourth article (“Have the Prophecies in Revelation 17-18 about Babylon Been Fulfilled? Part 4,” Bibliotheca Sacra 170 [October–December 2012]: 474-85).
4. This issue was discussed under the heading “Babylon’s Influence” in the third article (“Have the Prophecies in Revelation 17-18 about Babylon Been Fulfilled? Part 3,” Bibliotheca Sacra 170 [July–September 2012]: 346-53).
5. C. Marvin Pate, “A Progressive Dispensationalist View of Revelation,” in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 160-61; see also 168-69; and C. Marvin Pate and Calvin Haines, Doomsday Delusions (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1995), 43-44. Also Arthur Pink seems to follow the same eclectic interpretive method when he says, “It will thus be seen that we are far from sharing the views of those who limit the prophecies of the Revelation to a single fulfillment. We believe that there is much truth in both the Historical and Futurist interpretation. . . . How many of the controversies that have rule, alas, amongst the Lord’s people, have been due to a narrow way of limiting the thoughts of God, and seeking to confine or bend by our own apprehension of them. How often two, or more, apparently opposing systems of interpretation may really both be correct” (The Antichrist [Swengel, PA: Depot, 1923; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1988], 256-57). See also Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (New York: Scribner, 1910; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 1:392.
6. Darrell L. Bock, “Interpreting the Bible—How We Read Texts,” in Progressive Dispensationalism, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Craig A. Blaising (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1993), 93-96.
7. Kenneth L. Gentry, “A Preterist View of Revelation,” in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, 44. Although the articles in this series have been critical of the preterist interpretation, it is interesting to note that some of the best material on the importance of single meaning as cited here comes from the writings of preterists such as Balyeat, Gentry, and Terry.
8. Kenneth L. Gentry, “Beast of Revelation FAQ-Or-Questions and Answers about the Beast of Revelation,” online: http://forerunner.com/beast/beastfaq.html (accessed November 17, 2008).
9. Joseph Balyeat, Babylon, the Great City of Revelation (Sevierville, TN: Onward, 1991), 38-39; 63 n 5; 200.
10. Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 34.
11. Ibid., 35.
12. Robert L. Thomas, Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New versus the Old (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2002), 152.
13. Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments (New York: Philips and Hunt, 1883; reprint, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1974) , 205. See also Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 3rd rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970), 113; and Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1991; reprint, Colorado Springs: Cook, 1996), 98-122.
14. The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:9, in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes, rev. David S. Schaff (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), 3:605.
15. James Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963), 2:401.
16. Gentry, “A Preterist View of Revelation,” 44-45.
17. John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 51.
18. This issue was discussed in the previous article under the heading “Extrabiblical Material” (“Have the Prophecies in Revelation 17-18 about Babylon Been Fulfilled? Part 5,” Bibliotheca Sacra 170 [January–March 2013]: 86-91).
19. Alan F. Johnson, “Revelation,” in TheExpositor’s Bible Commentary, rev. ed. edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 747.
20. Charles H. Dyer, “The Identity of Babylon in Revelation 17-18 (Part 2),” Bibliotheca Sacra 144 (October–December 1987): 436. See also idem, World News and Bible Prophecy (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1993), 148. Bullinger similarly observes, “It is indeed surprising how any mistake could have been made in the identification of this woman. For the Holy Spirit first shows us her very name upon her forehead. Then, in verse 18, He tells us as plainly as words can tell anything, that ‘the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reignest over the kings of the earth,’ and chap. xvi. 19, as well as xvii. 5, identifies this city with Babylon. God says it is a ‘city.’ He does not say a system or a religion, but a ‘CITY’ ” (E. W. Bullinger, The Apocalypse or “The Day of the Lord” [London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1909; reprint, London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1972], 509).
21. Ibid., 560.
22. Dyer, “The Identity of Babylon in Revelation 17-18 (Part 2),” 434.
23. Charles C. Ryrie, Revelation, new ed., Everyman's Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1996), 116. Thomas L. Constable similarly observes, “We need to keep this double use of the name as a real city and as a symbol in mind as we study these chapters. In a similar way ‘Rome’ may mean the Roman Catholic Church as well as the city of Rome in Italy, and the name ‘Hollywood’ represents both a town and an industry associated with that town” (“Notes on Revelation,” online: www.soniclight.com, 151 [accessed November 28, 2008]).
24. John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ: A Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1966), 243.
25. Ibid., 257.
26. Ibid., 263.
27. Ibid., 267. See also Clarence Larkin, The Book of Revelation (Glenside, PA: Larkin, 1919), 150.
28. Dyer, World News and Bible Prophecy, 142-45; idem, “The Identity of Babylon in Revelation 17-18 (Part 1),” Bibliotheca Sacra 144 (July–September 1987): 305-13; and idem, “The Identity of Babylon in Revelation 17 and 18” (ThM thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979), 17-38.
29. Dyer, “The Identity of Babylon in Revelation 17-18 (Part 1),” 311-13. See also Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 313.
30. Johnson, “Revelation,” 736-38.
31. Dyer, “The Identity of Babylon in Revelation 17-18 (Part 1),” 305-11; and idem, “The Identity of Babylon in Revelation 17 and 18,” 17-30.
32. Larkin, The Book of Revelation, 150.
33. Ibid.
34. Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary, 326.
35. Henry Morris, The Revelation Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1983), 360.
36. Larkin, The Book of Revelation, 150.
37. Bullinger, The Apocalypse or “The Day of the Lord,” 567.
38. Larkin, The Book of Revelation, 150.
39. Bullinger, The Apocalypse or “The Day of the Lord,” 557-58.
40. Larkin, The Book of Revelation, 155.
41. Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 631 n 1.
42. Johnson, “Revelation,” 747.
43. Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, rev. ed., New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 308.
44. 4 Ezra, 28-31; Sibylline Oracles 5.143, 158-60, 434; and Apocalypse of Baruch 10:1-3; 11:1; 67:7.
45. This issue was discussed under the heading “Babylon’s Title” in the second article in this series (“Have the Prophecies in Revelation 17-18 about Babylon Been Fulfilled? Part 2,” Bibliotheca Sacra 170 [April–June 2012]: 223-40).
46. John J. Collins, “The Sibylline Oracles, Book 5,” in The Old Testament Psuedepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 1:390.
47. Larry Kreitzer, “Hadrian and the Nero Redivivus Myth,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 79 (1988): 97.
48. A. Klijn, “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:617.
49. Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary, 206.
50. Bruce M. Metzger, “The Fourth Book of Ezra,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:520.
51. Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.13 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 211.
52. Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary, 289.
53. 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), 101.
54. Mark Hitchcock, The Second Coming of Babylon (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2003), 104.
55. Morris, The Revelation Record, 323.
56. This possibility was considered under the heading “Babylon’s Title” 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]: 223-40).
57. Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary, 206. E. Schuyler English asked a number of questions in an attempt to convince his readers that Peter was in literal Babylon rather than Rome when he penned his first epistle. For example, if Peter was ministering in Rome toward the end of his life, why did Paul want to travel there to impart a spiritual gift to the Roman believers (Rom. 1:11)? Why did Paul write Romans to a city already experiencing Peter’s apostolic ministry? Why was it Paul’s ambition to minister where Peter was if it was also Paul’s desire not to build on another’s foundation (Rom. 15:20)? Why did Paul not greet Peter in Romans 16? Why did Paul make no reference to Peter when he wrote the prison letters from Rome in AD 60-62? Similarly, why did Paul make no reference to Peter when he wrote 2 Timothy from Rome in AD 67? Furthermore why would Peter minister in Rome, a predominantly Gentile city, when he was the apostle to the circumcised (Gal. 2:7-9)? (“Was St. Peter Ever in Rome?” Bibliotheca Sacra 124 [October–December 1967]: 317-20). English also observes that the tradition associating Peter with Rome might not be as strong as originally thought. He noted, “It is evident that memorials of Peter’s presence in Rome for a quarter of a century, and his bishopric and martyrdom there, had their beginnings more than one hundred years after the apostle’s execution” (i bid., 316).
58. This issue was discussed under the heading “Babylon’s Alliance” in the first article in this series (“Have the Prophecies in Revelation 17-18 about Babylon Been Fulfilled? Part 1,” Bibliotheca Sacra 169 [January–March 2012]: 89-100).
59. Philip Carrington, The Meaning of Revelation (London: S.P.C.K., 1931), 285. See also Johnson, “Revelation,” 741; and Paul S. Minear, I Saw a New Earth: An Introduction to the Visions of the Apocalypse (Washington, DC: Corpus, 1968), 237.
60. Dyer, “The Identity of Babylon in Revelation 17-18 (Part 2),” 437-38.
61. Steve Gregg, ed., Revelation: Four Views: A Parallel Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), 276.
62. Ibid.
63. G. R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, New Century Bible Commentary (London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1974), 249.
64. Beagley, The “Sitz im Leben” of the Apocalypse, 92-93; Foy E. Wallace, The Book of Revelation Consisting of a Commentary on the Apocalypse of the New Testament (Nashville: Wallace, 1966), 364, 374-75; Carrington, The Meaning of Revelation, 274; Don Preston, Who Is This Babylon? rev. ed. (Ardmore, OK: JaDon, 2006), 252; David B. Currie, Rapture: The End-Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind (Manchester, NH: Sophia, 2003), 322; Arthur M. Ogden, The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets: Commentary on Revelation, 3rd ed. (Pinson, AL: Ogden, 2006), 328, 437-38; J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975), 285-86; 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), 435; and Johnson, “Revelation,” 745.
65. Jim McGuiggan, The Book of Revelation (Lubbock, TX: International, 1976), 268.
66. Beagley, The “Sitz im Leben” of the Apocalypse, 92-93.
67. Cornelis Vanderwaal, Hal Lindsey and Biblical Prophecy (St. Catharines, ON: Paideia, 1978), 123-24; and idem, Hebrews–Revelation, vol. 10 of Search the Scriptures (St. Catharines, ON: Paideia, 1979), 82. See also Johnson, “Revelation,” 558.
68. This issue was presented as a weakness of the preterist Jerusalem position under the subheading “Unfulfilled Old Testament Prophecy concerning Babylon” in the previous article in this series (“Have the Prophecies in Revelation 17-18 about Babylon Been Fulfilled? Part 5,” Bibliotheca Sacra 170 [January–March 2013]: 96-100).
69. This issue was discussed under the heading “Babylon’s Title” 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]: 223-40).
70. Bullinger, The Apocalypse or “The Day of the Lord,” 563; Johnson, “Revelation,” 555-56; and Pink, The Antichrist, 261.
71. Bullinger, The Apocalypse or “The Day of the Lord,” 506.
72. Ogden, The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets, 441. Bullinger similarly explains, “That many martyrs–very many–have been killed at the hands of the church of Rome, if not in the city of Rome itself, none can deny. But these are not ‘ALL that have been slain on the earth’ as martyrs. Myriads of martyrs for God and His truth were slain, as such, hundreds of years before Rome ever had a Pope. The ‘prophets’ of the Old Testament were dead, and many had been slain as martyrs centuries before Rome existed, whether Papal or Pagan. Rome, whatever may be her guilt in this matter, cannot be charged with ‘all’ the martyrdoms of the ages” (The Apocalypse or “The Day of the Lord,” 512).
73. Ibid., 553; Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary, 339; J. A. Seiss, The Apocalypse: A Series of Special Lectures on the Revelation of Jesus Christ, with Revised Text (Philadelphia: Approved, 1865; reprint, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1977), 400; and Jürgen Roloff, The Revelation of John, trans. John E. Aslup, Continental Commentaries (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 207.
74. Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary, 289.
75. Pink, The Antichrist, 270. Perhaps this argument should not be pushed far, since John’s astonishment may have more to do with the beast’s resurrection (Rev. 13:3; 17:8) than with the woman’s drunkenness with the blood of the saints (Pierre Prigent, Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John, trans. Wendy Pradels [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001], 490).
76. William R. Newell, Revelation: A Complete Commentary (Chicago: Grace, 1935; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 263.
77. Ibid., 272.
78. George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1952), 2:683.
79. Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons; or, the Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife, 2nd American ed. (Edinburgh: Wood, 1862; reprint, New York: Loizeaux, 1959), 282. Later he says, “They come, in the divine chronology of events, immediately after an angel has proclaimed. ‘Babylon is fallen, is fallen.’ We have, as it were, with our own ears heard this predicted ‘Fall of Babylon’ announced from the high places of Rome itself, when the seven hills of the ‘Eternal City’ reverberated with the guns that proclaimed, not merely to the citizens of the Roman republic, but to the wide world, that ‘PAPACY HAD FALLEN, de facto and dejure, from the temporal throne of the Roman State’ ” (ibid., 283). For a popular-level treatment of the Roman Catholic Church as the fulfillment of Revelation 17 see Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast (Eugene: OR: Harvest, 1994).
80. Bullinger, The Apocalypse or “The Day of the Lord,” 506, 563; and Pink, The Antichrist, 261.
81. Merrill C. Tenney, “Revelation, Book of the,” in Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 5:97.
82. Ogden, The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets, 433.
83. M. Eugene Boring, Revelation, Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox, 1989), 49. Boring’s comment concerns “the church-historical interpretation,” which involves “predictions of all of history from John’s time through many centuries to the end of the world” (ibid., 48).