Have The Prophecies In Revelation 17-18 About Babylon Been Fulfilled? Part 2

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.]

The previous article analyzed the preterist interpretation of Babylon in Revelation 17-18 by focusing on Babylon’s harlotry and alliance with the beast. This article continues this analysis by focusing on Babylon’s adornment and title.

Babylon’s Adornment (Rev. 17:4; 18:16)

In identifying Babylon in Revelation 17 as Jerusalem, preterists (those who believe many of the events predicted in Revelation were fulfilled at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70) note that the colors John used to describe the harlot (scarlet, purple, and gold) in 17:4 and 18:16 are the same colors used to depict the central institutions of Judaism.[1] Preterists also note that these same colors are found in the attire of the high priest (Exod. 28:5), the tabernacle (25:4), and the temple curtain,[2] implements,[3] and adornment.[4] Other similar color associations include Old Testament descriptions of Zion (Jer. 4:30-31) and the scarlet thread tied to the scapegoat[5] and the sanctuary door.[6] Preterists also associate the harlot’s golden cup (Rev. 17:4) with similar scriptural imagery depicting Israel’s sins (Matt. 23:28, 35) and tribulations (Isa. 51:17-23; Ezek. 23:31-35; Zech. 12:2; 1 Thess. 2:16).[7] Preterists also observe, “The High Priest always sanctified his hands and his feet from a golden jug.”[8]

However, when scrutinized, these color parallels are not as convincing as they may initially appear. Contrary to preterist assertions,[9] scarlet does not uniquely identify Jerusalem, since the beast, which represents Rome according to preterism, is also scarlet (Rev. 17:3). Also even Emery concedes that although the color blue is found in the tabernacle (Exod. 25:4), it is absent in John’s description of Babylon.[10] Moreover, the colors used to describe the harlot may have more to do with associating her with general spiritual themes rather than specifically identifying her with Judaism’s institutions. For example scarlet (κόκκινος) is sometimes used in Scripture to contrast sin with divine purity (Isa. 1:18). Johnson notes that the harlot is associated with scarlet “presumably because the color symbolizes the beast’s blasphemy in contrast to the white-horse rider and those dressed in white, who are faithful and true (19:8, 11, 14).”[11] And Mounce observes, “The spectacular and costly garb of the prostitute should be contrasted with the ‘fine linen, bright and clean’ worn by the bride of the lamb.”[12] Also the harlot’s gold (χρυσίον) may be a deliberate parallel between the harlot and the coming new creation (Rev. 3:18; 21:18). Similarly purple may have more to do with generic portrayals of royalty than with Judaism, since it is also used to depict the authority of various Gentile nations such as Midian (Judg. 8:26), Persia (Esth. 1:6), and Tyre (Ezek. 27:7, 16).

Preterist color associations run into further difficulties when one recognizes that while the meaning of some colors, such as white or scarlet, may be apparent, attaching a specific meaning to some lesser-known colors requires subjectivity. Zuck warns:

Sometimes colors take on emblematic significance, but again caution should be used to avoid going beyond the clear designation of Scripture. Purple seemed to be a color used in fabrics to depict royalty. . . . White is often associated with purity. . . . We should avoid drawing meanings for other colors such as blue, red, scarlet, black, or yellow, since the Scriptures do not seem to point clearly to their meanings by associations. Again, students of the Bible should avoid reading into the Scriptures something that is not there.[13]

Also other interpreters can make an equally valid appeal to color associations in support of their views. Even Ogden concedes this point when commenting on Babylon’s colorful attire. “This description could be applied to every position discussed in this treatise including Rome.”[14] For example Scripture sometimes associates scarlet (κοκκίνος) and purple (πορφύρα) with the Roman imperial powers involved in Christ’s crucifixion (Matt. 27:28; Mark 15:20; John 19:2, 5).[15] Extrabiblical materials also associate Rome’s borders with purple,[16] Rome’s luxury with gold,[17] and the excesses of some of Rome’s emperors with scarlet.[18] Moreover, those contending that the harlot represents the papacy have long seen a connection between her adorning colors and the identical colors found in the robes of the church’s ecclesiastical representatives.[19]

On the other hand those who identify the harlot as literal Babylon can make a convincing case based on color associations. For example gold is seen not only in the head of gold representing Babylon in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Dan. 2:38) but also in Herodotus’s description of the Babylonian temple, which was noted for its gold.[20] Belshazzar gave Daniel a gold necklace and purple clothing for interpreting the handwriting on the wall (5:7, 16, 29). This parallel between the purple and gold of Neo-Babylonia and the purple and gold of the Babylonian harlot seems even stronger when it is remembered that the descriptions in both Daniel and Revelation were given on the eve of Babylon’s destruction. Scarlet is also evident in Nahum’s depiction of Babylon as she was on the verge of attacking Nineveh (Nah. 2:3).

The view that the harlot is Babylon also enjoys the advantage of being able to connect the harlot’s “gold cup” (Rev. 17:4, ποτήριον χρυσοῦν) with the Old Testament description of Babylon in Jeremiah 51:7. Babylon is a golden cup in the Lord’s hand intoxicating the nations. John used the same concept in his earlier descriptions of Babylon (Rev. 14:8; 17:2). In support of the view that the harlot is Jerusalem is the fact that the imagery of a cup is associated in several verses with Jerusalem (Isa. 51:17-23; Ezek. 23:31-35; Zech. 12:2; Matt. 23:28, 35; 1 Thess. 2:16). But the notion of a “golden cup” is absent in all these examples.[21] Regarding the alleged link between Revelation 17:4 and Matthew 23:35, even Beagley admits, “The resemblance is quite superficial.”[22] Although, as previously mentioned, a connection between the “golden cup” and Judaism can be found in extrabiblical material,[23] such correspondence cannot be found in the biblical canon. Thus both name and conceptual correspondence are lacking in the preterist use of Old Testament texts in which they seek to equate the harlot’s gold cup with Jerusalem. The association of Babylon’s scarlet, purple, and gold colors (Rev. 17:4; 18:16) with the institutions of Judaism does not identify Babylon as first-century Jerusalem.

Babylon’s Title (Rev. 17:5)

Four items associated with the harlot’s title in Revelation 17:5 argue against her identification as first-century Israel: (a) the improbability that this title is a parody of what was worn by the Jewish high priest, (b) the notion that the word “Babylon” found in the harlot’s title should retain its ordinary meaning, (c) the unlikelihood that “Babylon” was an accepted first-century code word for “Jerusalem,” (d) and the failure of first-century Jerusalem to satisfy the criterion “the mother of harlots and the abominations of the earth.”

Parody of the Jewish High Priest

Preterists believe the harlot’s title identifies her as first-century Jerusalem. They contend that the words on the woman’s forehead that portray her as a harlot are reminiscent of God’s depiction of Judah as having “a harlot’s forehead” (Jer. 3:3). They also maintain that John’s description of the woman’s harlotry is deliberate parody of the Jewish high priest who was to have the words “Holy to the Lord” inscribed on his turban (Exod. 28:36-38).[24] Despite these seemingly intriguing connections, this preterist interpretation faces three problems.

First, as will be developed below, preterists have failed to demonstrate that the word “Babylon” can be equated with the word “Jerusalem.” Second, in the very chapter that preterists use to equate the harlot’s forehead with Judah (Jer. 3:3), restoration language is employed that contradicts the replacement idea perpetuated by preterism. Jeremiah 3:17 says, “At that time they will call Jerusalem ‘The throne of the Lord’ and all the nations will be gathered to it, to Jerusalem.” This restoration motif receives even greater treatment later on in Jeremiah’s “book of comfort” (Jer. 30-33).

Third, the harlot’s forehead may have a better parallel with Greco-Roman sources, which indicate that Roman prostitutes of John’s day wore their names on their headbands.[25] Preterists are correct in seeking a parallel in the Old Testament rather than extrabiblical sources. However, here the extrabiblical sources may be a better fit, since the Old Testament parallel that preterists employ pertains to Judah rather than Babylon (3:3). Preterists distance themselves from these Greco-Roman texts on the grounds that they do not specifically say “that the women in question wore their names on their headbands or foreheads. The former text is interpreted as meaning that Claudius’ wife played the harlot ‘under the feigned name Lycisca,’ while the latter text is translated: ‘your name hung at the door.’”[26] However, the selective use of Greco-Roman sources in the preterist interpretation should be noted. For example preterists embrace the sources that refer to Rome as the city of the seven hills despite their many aforementioned incompatibilities with Revelation 17:9.

Meaning Of Babylon

The preterist view that Babylon means Jerusalem is obviously unworkable to the extent that Babylon retains its ordinary meaning. Thus Gentry is quick to point out that not even all dispensationalists interpret the word Babylon literally.[27] Because of their nonliteral view of the word, preterists refer to Babylon as “Babylon,”[28] “apocalyptic Babylon,”[29] “symbolic” Babylon,[30] and “mystic/mystical Babylon.”[31] However, six reasons make it more plausible to understand the word “Babylon” in its ordinary sense.

First, the proper rendering of the harlot’s title is “Babylon the Great” (NASB) rather than “Mystery, Babylon the Great” (KJV, NIV). Most preterists seem to rely on Bible versions that render the harlot’s title as “Mystery, Babylon the Great.”[32] Their preference for this rendering may relate to the fact that it more easily conveys a nonliteral understanding of Babylon as “a mysterious name”[33] or that Babylon’s “true identity is hidden in her name.”[34] Nonpreterists also contend that the rendering “Mystery, Babylon the Great” also attaches a symbolic significance to Babylon. For example Bruce notes, “This title was written on her forehead: Mystery: ‘mystery’ indicates that the name she bears . . . is not to be understood literally, but allegorically: Babylon the Great is read, but ‘Rome’ is meant (cf. verses 9, 19).”[35]

The two major issues in this discussion involve (a) whether the word μυστήριον should be included in the harlot’s title and (b) the meaning of μυστήριον.[36] Regarding the first issue it is better to translate the verse as “mystery, Babylon the Great” (NASB), thus treating “mystery” in an appositional relationship to “name” (ὄνομα) rather than part of the harlot’s title. This translation is preferred, since John elsewhere always referred to Babylon as “Babylon the Great” rather than “Mystery, Babylon the Great” (14:8, 16:19; 18:2, 10, 21).[37] Furthermore Pink observes:

We believe that the English translators have misled many by printing (on their own authority) the word “mystery” in large capital letters, thus making it appear that this was a part of “the woman’s” name. This we are assured is a mistake. That “mystery” is connected with the “Woman” herself and not with her “name” is clear from v. 7, where the angel says unto John, “I will tell thee the mystery of the Woman, and of the beast which carrieth her.”[38]

Because the mystery involves both the woman and the beast[39] and because the chapter actually says more about the beast than the woman,[40] “mystery” cannot be confined to the harlot’s title.

Regarding the meaning of “mystery” it seems better to understand the word as communicating a new truth previously unknown rather than something mysterious or hidden. As Vine explains, “In the N.T, it [μυστήριον] denotes, not the mysterious (as with the Eng. word), but that which, being outside the range of unassisted natural apprehension, can be made known only by Divine revelation, and is made known in a manner and at a time appointed by God, and to those who are illumined by His Spirit.”[41] Robertson combines πνευματικῶς of Revelation 11:8 with μυστήριον in Revelation 17:5. He concludes, “The name Babylon is to be interpreted mystically or spiritually (cf. πνευματικῶς 11:8) for Rome.”[42] However, Thomas notes that such a comparison is inappropriate since “μυστήριον is a noun” and “not an adverb like πνευματικῶς” and μυστήριον “comes from a different root” than πνευματικῶς.[43] The mystery or new truth may refer to Babylon’s evil character[44] or the relationship of the beast and the harlot in the end times.[45] Thus the fact that the harlot’s title communicates the name Babylon and unfolds new information about her, gives no reason for attaching a less-than-literal significance to the word “Babylon” in her title.

Second, Revelation’s geographic references are typically assigned a literal interpretation. Although not all names in Revelation are meant to be understood literally, such as Balak, Balaam, and Jezebel (Rev. 2:14, 20), generally the names of cities and geographical regions are literal. For example most interpreters typically understand the following places and cities in Revelation literally: Asia (1:4), Patmos (1:9), Ephesus (2:1), Smyrna (2:8), Pergamum (2:12), Thyatira (2:18), Sardis (3:1), Philadelphia (3:7), Laodicea (3:14), the Euphrates (9:14; 16:12), and Armageddon (16:16; cf. 2 Kings 23:29). Why should the name Babylon depicted in Revelation 17-18 not be given the same literal interpretation?[46]

Third, when John wanted to communicate that he was using a place name in a nonliteral sense, he made this explicit. For example in 11:8 he wrote, “the great city which is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt.”[47] Walvoord identifies twenty-six instances where an interpretation is conspicuously provided in the immediate context.[48] In fact even within Revelation 17 five symbols are interpreted for the reader. The seven heads (17:3), seven mountains (v. 9), ten horns (v. 3), waters (v. 1), and woman (v. 1) are all symbolic, since they are respectively interpreted as seven mountains (v. 9), seven kings (v. 10), ten kings (v. 12), people (v. 15), and a city (v. 18).[49] No similar self-interpretive formula is found in Revelation’s use of the word “Babylon” (14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21).

Fourth, given Revelation’s dominant use of the Old Testament,[50] it is likely that John employed the term “Babylon” based on how it is used in the Old Testament. If Babylon means Babylon throughout the Old Testament, then that is likely its meaning in the Apocalypse. Regarding Revelation 17-18 Kuhn observes, “The most important features of this picture are taken from the OT prophets. This is true even of the name Babylon.”[51] This point is particularly noticeable when observing the relationship between Revelation and Daniel. Daniel, perhaps more than any other Old Testament book, influenced Revelation. In Daniel, Babylon always means literal Babylon. Given the similarities between Revelation and Daniel, why should Revelation’s treatment of Babylon not be understood literally as well?[52]

Fifth, if Babylon and Jerusalem are always portrayed as distinct entities throughout Scripture, why should the Apocalypse be the single exception to this rule? Throughout the Bible the two cities retain separate identities and even interact with each other.[53] In fact numerous Old Testament passages, which likely form the background for Revelation 17-18, distinguish these two cities from each other in the very same context.[54] For example Jeremiah 51:49 says, “Indeed Babylon is to fall for the slain of Israel” (italics added).[55] Why would John, who drew so heavily from the Old Testament in writing Revelation, interchange the natural meanings of these words as is done by preterists?[56]

The notion that John exchanged the normal Old Testament meanings of Babylon and Jerusalem becomes even more tenuous when it is remembered that Revelation’s nature is to arrange existing data into a chronological framework rather than to add new truth. As Fruchtenbaum explains, “The value of the Book of Revelation is not that it provides a lot of new information, but rather it takes the scattered Old Testament prophecies and puts them in a chronological order so that the sequence of events may be determined.”[57]

Dyer also similarly observes, “If the Old Testament prophecies are like pieces of a large jigsaw puzzle, then Revelation is the completed picture on the top of the box that illustrates how the pieces come together. Prophecies about the time of trouble, the second coming of Christ, the destruction of Babylon, the restoration of Israel . . . are all found in the Old Testament. Revelation ties these pieces together.”[58]

Sixth, had it been John’s intention to put the concept of “Jerusalem” in the context of Revelation 17-18, he had multiple linguistic tools at his disposal to accomplish this goal. Throughout the Apocalypse John employed the terms “Jerusalem” (Rev. 3:12; 21:2, 10), “Israel” (7:4; 21:12), “Israelites” (2:14), and “Zion” (14:1). In chapters 17-18 it would have been easy for him to use any of these clear terms instead of the ambiguous word “Babylon” if he had wanted to identify the harlot as first-century Jerusalem. Morris notes, “At the very least, it would be confusing to John’s first century readers, as well as to later generations, for him to write so much about Babylon when he really meant Rome”[59] or Jerusalem or some other city. The preceding six reasons argue in favor of understanding the word “Babylon” in its ordinary sense, rather than infusing it with the foreign meaning “Jerusalem.”

Babylon As A Code For Jerusalem

Since the word “Babylon” should be interpreted according to its ordinary sense, the burden of proof lies with the preterists to explain why Babylon means Jerusalem. Preterists appeal to the theory that Babylon was an accepted code word for Jerusalem in the early church and that John was simply employing this practice when he penned the Apocalypse.[60] They argue that “Babylon” was used in lieu of “Jerusalem” because in John’s day Jerusalem had taken on Babylon’s attributes by oppressing God’s people, holding God’s people in spiritual captivity, and by becoming unholy.[61] Thus the divine hostility initially directed against Babylon was redirected against first-century Jerusalem. However, despite the contention among some preterists that “it was clear” “that Jerusalem had become a ‘Babylon,’ ”[62] this code theory has three deficiencies.

First, there is no biblical warrant for such a code. According to Thomas, “To refer the name ‘Babylon’ to Jerusalem is unprecedented.”[63] He adds that “this view goes against the historical fact that Jerusalem is related to the people of God and Babylon the world at large.”[64] Although Sodom (Deut. 29:22-24; 32:29, 32; Isa. 1:9-10; Jer. 23:14; Lam. 4:6; Ezek. 16:46-49; Rev. 11:8) and Egypt (Ezek. 23: 3, 8, 19, 27-28; Rev. 11:8) were used as metaphors for Jerusalem, “Babylon” is never used in this way.[65]

Second, extrabiblical sources furnish no evidence for such a code. As Beale notes, “There is not one example of ‘Babylon’ ever being a symbolic name for Israel, either before or after 70 A.D. This does not mean such an application is impossible, but the burden of proof rests upon those maintaining the Babylon = Jerusalem identification.”[66] Thus the Babylon-equals-Rome view has an advantage over the Jerusalem view. Unlike Jerusalem advocates, Rome advocates are able to point to specific extrabiblical texts that use Babylon as a code for Rome.[67] No clear biblical or extrabiblical text used the word “Babylon” as a code word for “Jerusalem” in John’s day. Therefore the Babylon-equals-Jerusalem code makes an assumption, as even some preterists seem to concede. Beagley notes, “It may be that the term was current among John’s readers, who would have known, therefore, what he meant.”[68] Russell expresses a similar lack of certitude, “What if Jerusalem were already known and recognised among Christians as the mystical Babylon?”[69]

Third, the assumption on which the code theory is built is defeated by another portion of Scripture. The Babylon-equals-Jerusalem code contends that Jerusalem “was a city too dangerous to mention by name” at the time of writing.[70] However, regarding the Babylon-equals-Rome code theory, Morris says, “Paul was not afraid to speak directly about Rome in his writings, so why should John be?”[71] This same logic could be applied as a criticism against the Babylon-equals-Jerusalem code theory, since Paul seems to have written derogatively of Jerusalem as a city of bondage in Galatians 4:25. Whether one takes the southern (AD 49) or northern (AD 54-57) Galatian theory, Paul wrote these words about the same time in which preterists date the book of Revelation (AD 65).[72]

Much of the preterist case for Babylon as a code for Jerusalem comes from Peter’s reference to Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13. Because preterists believe that Peter wrote his letter from Jerusalem, they contend that in that verse Peter was using the word “Babylon” as a code for Jerusalem in 1 Peter 5:13. Russell maintains that 4:17 also supports the notion that Peter was in Jerusalem when he wrote the epistle. The verse reads, “For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?” (italics added). Russell sees the phrase “house of God” as a reference to the Jewish temple. Moreover, the phrase “and if it begins first with us” places Peter in the temple area when the judgment was to take place. Thus Russell argues that this verse fixes Peter’s location in Jerusalem just before the city’s destruction in AD 70.[73]

Russell further contends that Peter’s life was more closely associated with Jerusalem than with any other city. For example Peter and the apostles remained in Jerusalem when the rest of the church was scattered (Acts 8:1; 11:19). Moreover, “Peter was in Jerusalem when Herod Agrippa I apprehended and imprisoned him (Acts 12:3).” Paul visited Peter when the latter was residing in Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18). And fourteen years later Paul, accompanied by Barnabas and Titus, again visited Peter in Jerusalem (2:1-9). In addition, Peter was intimidated by those who came from Jerusalem to Antioch “presumably because, on his return to Jerusalem, he would be called to account by them: thus implying that Jerusalem was his usual residence” (vv. 11-12). Moreover, if “Markus, named in this salutation is John Mark. . . . we know that he also abode in Jerusalem” (Acts 12:12, 25). In addition, “Silvanus, or Silas, the writer or bearer of the epistle, is known to us as a prominent member of the church of Jerusalem” (15:22-32).[74]

However, the notion that “house” in 1 Peter 4:17 locates Peter in Jerusalem seems specious, since Peter earlier used the same noun (οἶκος) in reference to the church rather than the Jerusalem temple (2:5). Furthermore Russell’s examples linking Peter to Jerusalem are all taken from the early portion of the book of Acts.[75] His last reference regarding Silas (Acts 15:22-32) is when Peter was at the Jerusalem Council in AD 49. Using these early dates to establish the location of the writing of Peter’s letter is unconvincing, since the apostle could have traveled extensively between AD 49 and the composition of the epistle (AD 64).

Peter’s propensity for travel is seen early on in his journey “to another place” (12:17) and in Paul’s declaration of his apostolic right “to take along a believing wife” as Cephas did (1 Cor. 9:5). In fact possibly Peter traveled to Corinth, since Paul mentioned a Petrine faction there (1:12). Constable seems open to this perspective. “There is no scriptural record that Peter ever visited Corinth, though he may have.”[76] Dionysius, a second-century Corinthian bishop, indicated that Peter was influential in the Corinthian church. Eusebius noted that Dionysius wrote to Pope Soter and indicated that Peter along with Paul “taught together in our Corinth and were our founders.”[77] Using portions of early Acts to establish Peter’s location at the end of his ministry contradicts a central purpose of the book, which is to record the transition from the Jewish-oriented ministry of Peter to the Gentile-focused ministry of Paul.[78] This transition explains why Peter seems not to have been mentioned in the book’s second half. Also the association of Mark with Jerusalem is unconvincing, since later on “Scripture places both Peter and Mark in Rome at the end of Peter’s ministry (cf. 1 Peter 5:13 with Col. 4:10; Philem. 23-24).”[79]

Extrabiblical sources place Peter in Rome at the end of his life[80] rather than in Jerusalem. A minority view indicates that Peter wrote his letter from Babylon before journeying to Rome.[81] According to this view Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13 should be interpreted as a straightforward statement rather than a code.[82] This view has much to commend it. If one interprets the geographic areas in the greeting section of the letter literally (1:1), then the geographic area mentioned in the conclusion of the epistle (5:13) may deserve the same literal interpretation.[83] Although Peter did use figurative language in other sections of his letter (1:2, 13; 2:4), this fact does not mean that he employed figurative language in 5:13. Each use of figurative language must be proven.

It is difficult to argue that 1 Peter 5:13 is describing a figurative city in the same way Scripture symbolically portrays cities elsewhere (Gal. 4:24-25; Rev. 11:8). In Galatians 4:24-25 the text uses the word “allegorically” to point out figurative usage. Similarly Revelation 11:8 uses the word “spiritually.” However, no similar designations are used of Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13. While some sources did employ “Babylon” as a code for Rome, these were composed in the second century several decades after Peter penned his letter.[84]

Moreover, Babylon would have been a logical place for Peter to visit.[85] Because of the Babylonian captivity, many Jews lived in the area.[86] The magi also came from Babylon (Matt. 2:2).[87] Jews from Mesopotamia had heard Peter’s Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:9). The Babylonian Talmud was developed from this area.[88] In fact Babylon eventually became an influential Jewish center outside the land.[89] Babylon would have been an obvious place for Peter to visit, given his role as the apostle to the circumcised (Gal. 2:8). If some think that the distance between Jerusalem and Babylon is too great to traverse, it must be remembered that Jeremiah made the same journey (Jer. 13:1-11).[90]

Russell cites three extrabiblical sources in order to argue that Babylon was deserted at the time Peter wrote his epistle and therefore the notion that Peter visited Babylon should be rejected.[91] However, his use of Strabo may be overstated. According to Lang, “Strabo, who died in A.D. 25, is cited in proof that by this time no city was left. . . . This is an instance of how easily a lax quotation or assertion may falsify both an author and an issue, which being once done, other writers too easily follow suit. What Strabo says is: ‘And now indeed [Selucia] has become greater than Babylon, which for the most part has become deserted’ (ἡ δ∆ ἔρημος ἡ πολλή).”[92] Moreover, Russell’s use of Strabo[93] and Pliny[94] may be problematic, since by Russell’s own admission these authors wrote during the reigns of Augustus (27 BC–AD 14) and Vespasian (AD 69-79), respectively. Thus Strabo and Pliny record circumstances not necessarily contemporaneous with the composition of 1 Peter (AD 64). Russell’s use of Josephus[95] is also problematic, since he concedes that the record of persecution and plague experienced by the Babylonian Jews during the last years of Caligula’s life[96] could refer to the whole region of Babylonia rather than the city of Babylon.

Even if Josephus’ record of the persecution of the Jews and subsequent plague impacted the Jews living in the city of Babylon, this does not preclude their increase in number and return to Babylon during the twenty years that intervened between these events and the writing of Peter’s epistle.[97] Some texts overlooked by Russell may indicate that Babylon was not totally deserted in Peter’s day. Josephus wrote that in 40 BC the king of Parthia released Hyrcannus “from his bonds and permitted him to settle in Babylon, where there was a great number of Jews.”[98] Philo, writing about AD 42, similarly mentioned Jews living in Babylon during his day.[99] Fruchtenbaum concludes that at the time Peter wrote his letter, “Babylonia had the highest concentration of Jews living outside the land.”[100] Babylon as the place of composition may also explain “the strong Jewishness of the epistle.”[101]

The major weakness of viewing Babylon as the place of writing for Peter’s epistle is that no extrabiblical evidence indicates that he made a journey to Babylon.[102] Whether Rome or Babylon was the place where 1 Peter was written, either one is more likely than Jerusalem. Because of the unlikelihood that Peter wrote his letter from Jerusalem, there is no basis for the notion that Babylon was a well-known code word for Jerusalem in John’s day. The evidence for such a code is lacking from Scripture, extrabiblical material, and Peter’s closing reference to Babylon (1 Pet. 5:13).

Mother Of Harlots

Preterists have different ways of explaining the phrase “the mother of harlots” inscribed on the woman’s forehead (Rev. 17:5). These explanations include the following: (a) the notion that Jerusalem is older than Rome,[103] (b) a parody against Galatians 4:26 that depicts the New Jerusalem as “our mother,”[104] (c) the fact that Jerusalem was in a covenant relationship with God,[105] (d) Jerusalem’s multiple apostasies,[106] (e) the connection with Hosea and his children of harlotry (Hos. 1:2; 2:1-5),[107] and (f) the proposition that Jerusalem is the source of all harlotry.[108] However, some commentators have seen in the phrase “the mother of harlots and the abominations of the earth” (Rev. 17:5) “the mother or the fountain-head of all the systems of idolatry which have since flooded the earth from the one great source.”[109] Seiss interprets this phrase as describing “the great embodiment, source, and representative of all idolatry, false worship, and perversion of the word and institutes of God.”[110]

This notion of viewing the phrase “mother” as “source” may receive support from the parallel that John seems to have made between the woman of Revelation 12 and the woman of chapter 17. For example both figures are mothers, both are associated with waters and the wilderness, and both are attractively adorned. Both are influential, experience persecution, represent cities, and receive supernatural sustenance.[111] Since the woman in chapter 12 is the mother or “source” of the Messiah (vv. 4-5), consistency seems to dictate that the woman in chapter 17 is the mother or source of harlotry. Furthermore Bullinger says the cup in the harlot’s hand (17:4) is evidence that she represents all false religion. “The cup is one. This tells us that the corrupt streams that flow from this one fountain-head are all one in essence, and character, and effect.”[112] The fact that the phrase “the mother of harlots” is articular adds intensification to the noun, thereby buttressing the notion that she represents the source of all false religion. She is not a “mother of harlots” but “the mother of harlots” (ἡ μήτηρ τῶν πορνῶν).[113]

Options narrow as to the identification of the harlot if the assertion is correct that she represents the source of all harlotry. Eden between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (Gen. 2:8-15)[114] represents one option, since it is from this locale that Adam and Eve sinned against God, thereby corrupting the entire human race (Rom. 5:12) and the cosmos (8:20-22). Another option is that the harlot called “Babylon” (Rev. 17:5) may refer to the Tower of Babel incident in Shinar (Gen. 11:1-9). Because independent languages, cultures, and nations owe their origin to this event, the false religion embraced by the tower’s builders automatically influenced every civilization that followed. Seiss explains: “The seeds of the fascinating invention went with the dispersion, planting themselves in every new settlement, and growing ever fresh crops as the streams of humanity ran on amid centuries, but ever producing the likeness of the original mother. Whatever changes or additions came, it was still old Babylon, which ever abides, potent through all the ages. . . . It was already bottled and labeled before the first dispersion. It went with that dispersion into every country and nation under heaven.”[115]

If this contention that the harlot’s title represents the source of all harlotry is correct, then a significant blow is dealt to the preterist proposal that the harlot’s identification is first-century Jerusalem, since Jerusalem is a mere “daughter harlot” rather than the “mother harlot.” As Johnson explains, “This prostitute is the mother of all of the earth’s idolatrous prostitutes. . . . She is the fountainhead, the reservoir, the womb that bears all the individual cases of the historical resistance to God’s will on the earth. . . . Therefore she cannot be merely ancient Babylon, Rome, or Jerusalem, because these are only her children—she is the mother of them all.”[116]

Johnson continues, “While Ford presents five good reasons why Babylon cannot be the city of Rome, she falls into a similar error by identifying the city as Jerusalem. But Jerusalem, like Rome, is only one of the multiple manifestations of Babylon in history.”[117] In fact rather than identifying her as the mother harlot, Ezekiel specifically identifies Judah as a daughter harlot, guilty of emulating the whorish characteristics of her Amorite, Hittite, and Egyptian “parents” (Ezek. 16:3, 44-45; 23:2-4).[118] Far from presenting Israel as the mother, source, or origin of Babylonian harlotry, the Old Testament typically portrays the nation as the mere borrower of such harlotry (Exod. 34:12-17; 1 Kings 11:5-7; 2 Kings 23:10-11; Amos 5:25-26; Acts 7:43).[119] Seiss summarizes this point in this way:

All the kings of the earth and all the governments under heaven have more or less joined in the uncleanness of the same old Babylonian Harlot, who has defiled every spot and nook of the whole inhabited world. . . . The Jewish whoredoms, and the Papal whoredoms, and the Mohammedan whoredoms, and the whoredoms of all perverted Christian religionists, though not entirely letting go of the confession of one God, are still in essence the same old harlotry which first found place and embodiment on the banks of the Euphrates.[120]

Jerusalem appears too late on the stage of world apostasy to be considered the source of all harlotry. In the Scriptures Salem (i.e., Jerusalem),[121] is first mentioned in Genesis 14:18, three chapters after the Babel dispersion (11:1-9).[122] In fact Israel was miraculously created subsequent to and thus independent of the effect of Babel in order to mediate divine blessings to the corrupted nations (12:1-3).[123] This order explains God’s displeasure with Jerusalem when she embraced the harlotry of these nations rather than acting as God’s vehicle of blessings to them. After 14:18, Jerusalem is not mentioned again until the time of Joshua (Josh. 10:1). Even then Jerusalem remained a Jebusite city (15:63) and did not fall into Jewish hands until the time of David (2 Sam. 5). Thus to argue that Jerusalem is the source of all harlotry is to contend that no harlotry existed before 1000 BC and yet harlotry was in existence long before this time (Exod. 34:16).

Understanding the mother of harlots as the one who originated all harlotry also helps explain the scope of the woman’s influence in Revelation 17:15, which says her reach extends to all peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues. As Seiss notes, “Giving the words the latitude which properly belongs to such a description as this, the masses of the earth’s population, not only of one period, but of all periods since nations came into being, would seem to be the conception.”[124] Therefore interpreting Jerusalem as the mother of harlots fails on two counts. First, Jerusalem was a “daughter harlot” rather than the “mother” (source) of all harlotry. Second, since Jerusalem did not become a permanent Jewish city until the time of David, the preterist explanation fails to consider those impacted by harlotry before that time.

Conclusion

Four issues related to the woman’s title preclude identifying Babylon as first-century Jerusalem. They are (a) a lack of correlation with the high priest’s mitre, (b) the normal meaning of “Babylon,” (c) a lack of evidence of a code that uses “Babylon” in lieu of “Jerusalem,” and (d) the failure of Jerusalem to satisfy “the mother of harlots” imagery. Thus what John revealed about Babylon's adornment and about her title is not adequate grounds for equating the Babylonian harlot with first-century Jerusalem.

Notes

1. Philip Carrington, The Meaning of Revelation (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1931), 287; David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Tyler, TX: Dominion, 1987), 429-30; Gary DeMar, End Times Fiction: A Biblical Consideration of the Left Behind Theology (Nashville: Nelson, 2001), 127-28; J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975), 277-78, 287-88; Kenneth L. Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology, 2nd ed. (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1997), 394; idem, “A Preterist View of Revelation,” in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 76-77; Arthur M. Ogden, The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets: Commentary on Revelation, 3rd ed. (Pinson, AL: Ogden, 2006), 328-29; and Cornelis Vanderwaal, Hal Lindsey and Biblical Prophecy (Saint Catharines, ON: Paideia, 1978), 132-33.
2. Josephus, The Jewish War 5.5.4.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., 5.5.6.
5. m. Yoma 6.6.
6. Ibid., 6.8.
7. Ralph E. Bass, Back to the Future: A Study in the Book of Revelation (Greenville, SC: Living Hope, 2004), 382-83; Carrington, The Meaning of Revelation, 287; and Ogden, The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets, 322.
8. m. Yoma 4.5; and Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 394 n. 41.
9. Vanderwaal, Hal Lindsey and Biblical Prophecy, 132-33; and Ogden, The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets, 329.
10. Bob Emery, An Evening in Ephesus with John, the Son of Zebedee (Charlottesville, VA: Benchpress, 1998), 104.
11. Alan F. Johnson, “Revelation,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 556.
12. Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, rev. ed., New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 310. See also Otto Michel, “kovkko", kovkkino",” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 813-14.
13. Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1991; reprint, Colorado Springs: Cook, 1996), 193.
14. Ogden, The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets, 438.
15. William R. Newell, Revelation: A Complete Commentary (Chicago: Grace, 1935; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 280.
16. Sibylline Oracles 8:74.
17. Pliny, Natural History 33.39-40.
18. Suetonius, Nero 30.3.
19. E. B. Elliott, Horae Apocalypticae; or A Commentary on the Apocalypse, Critical and Historical; Including Also an Examination of the Chief Prophecies of Daniel, 4th ed. (London: Seelys, 1851), 4:30; Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast (Eugene: OR: Harvest, 1994), 73-74; Clarence Larkin, The Book of Revelation (Glenside, PA: Larkin, 1919), 153; and John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ: A Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1966), 245.
20. Herodotus, TheHistories 1.183.
21. Even some of the examples featuring cup imagery that preterists rely on create more problems than they solve for their view. For example preterists rely on the cup imagery in Zechariah 12:2 and interpret the mourning of Israel in verse 10 as Jewish mourning because of coming judgment. However, the context of the passage indicates that the Jews will mourn because of their repentance (David Baron, Zechariah: A Commentary on His Visions and Prophecies [London: Morgan & Scott, 1918; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001], 422; and Stanley D. Toussaint, “A Critique of the Preterist View of the Olivet Discourse,” Bibliotheca Sacra 161 [October–December 2004]: 478).
22. 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), 94.
23. m. Yoma 4.5.
24. Beagley, The “Sitz im Leben” of the Apocalypse, 102; Ford, Revelation, 279, 288; Bass, Back to the Future, 383-84; Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, 431; and DeMar, End Times Fiction, 128.
25. Seneca, Controversiae 1.2.7; Juvenal, Satires 6.122-23; Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, 65; and Henry Barclay Swete, Commentary on Revelation: The Greek Text with Introduction Notes and Indexes, 3rd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1911; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977), 217.
26. Beagley, The “Sitz im Leben” of the Apocalypse, 102. See also Ford, Revelation, 279.
27. Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 392 n. 34. See also DeMar, End Times Fiction, 129.
28. Beagley, The “Sitz im Leben” of the Apocalypse, 81, 92, 96, 99, 107, 110; and Emery, An Evening in Ephesus with John, the Son of Zebedee, 107.
29. J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia: A Critical Inquiry into the New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord’s Second Coming (London: Unwin, 1887; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 491, 496.
30. Chilton, Paradise Restored, 188.
31. Russell, The Parousia, 347, 348, 350, 503, 507, 509; Carrington, The Meaning of Revelation, 272; and Foy E. Wallace, The Book of Revelation Consisting of a Commentary on the Apocalypse of the New Testament (Nashville: Wallace, 1966), 366.
32. Joseph Balyeat, Babylon, the Great City of Revelation (Servierville, TN: Onward, 1991), 120; Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, 423; Gentry, “A Preterist View of Revelation,” 77; Hank Hanegraaff, The Apocalypse Code (Nashville: Nelson, 2007), 118, 234; Ogden, The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets, 325, 328, 435, 438; Russell, The Parousia, 483; Wallace, The Book of Revelation Consisting of a Commentary on the Apocalypse of the New Testament, 368; and idem, He Shall Have Dominion, 391. Sometimes preterists rely on the NASB but still indicate that “mystery” is part of the harlot’s title (DeMar, End Times Fiction, 125, 128).
33. Ford, Revelation, 276. While Emery relies on the NASB for the rendering of the harlot’s title, he still refers to Babylon as “mysterious ‘Babylon the Great’ ” (An Evening in Ephesus with John, the Son of Zebedee, 103-4).
34. Ogden, The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets, 329.
35. F. F. Bruce, “Revelation,” in International Bible Commentary with the New International Version, ed. F. F. Bruce (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 1621.
36. Charles H. Dyer, “The Identity of Babylon in Revelation 17-18 (Part 2),” Bibliotheca Sacra 144 (October–December 1987): 434-36.
37. Henry Morris, The Revelation Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1983), 324; Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 289; and Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 246.
38. Arthur Pink, The Antichrist (Swengel, PA: Depot, 1923; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1988), 262.
39. Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Book of Revelation, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 466; and Mounce, The Book of Revelation, 313.
40. Pink, The Antichrist, 271.
41. W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville: Nelson, 1996), 424. See Richard Chenevix Trench, Commentary on the Epistles to the Seven Churches in Asia Minor, 6th ed. (New York: Scribner, 1872; reprint, Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1978), 55-56; Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 428-34; Clarence Larkin, The Book of Revelation (Glenside, PA: Larkin, 1919), 150; Mounce, The Book of Revelation, 311 n. 18; Stephen. S. Smalley, “Mystery,” in New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas et al. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996), 794; and Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary, 289.
42. Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, rev. ed. (Nashville: Broadman, 1933; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), 6:430.
43. Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary, 288-89.
44. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation (Columbus, OH: Lutheran Book Concern, 1943; reprint, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1963), 496.
45. Charles H. Dyer, World News and Bible Prophecy (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1993), 148.
46. Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary, 207.
47. Ibid. (italics added). Similarly in Galatians 4:24-26 the text itself uses the word “allegorically” to explain that the city of Jerusalem is being used figuratively.
48. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 29-30. See also J. B. Smith, A Revelation of Jesus Christ: A Commentary on the Book of Revelation, ed. J. Otis Yoder (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1961), 18-19.
49. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, 321 n. 68; and Pink, The Antichrist, 258;
50. Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 40; Ferrel Jenkins, The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), 22; Pink, The Antichrist, 256; and Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Footsteps of the Messiah, rev. ed. (Tustin, CA: Ariel, 2003), 801-8.
51. Karl G. Kuhn, “Βαβυλών,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 1 (1965), 515.
52. Mark Hitchcock, The Second Coming of Babylon (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2003), 105.
53. Charles H. Dyer, The Rise of Babylon, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 2003), 41-109.
54. Tony Garland, A Testimony of Jesus Christ: A Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Camano Island, WA: Spirit and Truth, 2004), 2:202.
55. See also Isaiah 14:1-4; 48:12-14; Jeremiah 50:17-20; 51:1-6, 24, 35, 49.
56. Mark Hitchcock and Thomas Ice, Breaking the Apocalypse Code (Costa Mesa, CA: Word for Today, 2007), 172-73.
57. Fruchtenbaum, Footsteps of the Messiah, 10-11.
58. Dyer, The Rise of Babylon, 157.
59. Morris, The Revelation Record, 323.
60. Beagley, The “Sitz im Leben” of the Apocalypse, 81; and David B. Currie, Rapture: The End-Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind (Manchester, NH: Sophia, 2003), 306; and Russell, The Parousia, 350.
61. Emery, An Evening in Ephesus with John, the Son of Zebedee, 103-4.
62. Ibid., 107.
63. Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary, 307.
64. Ibid., 206.
65. G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 25.
66. Ibid.
67. Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 635 n. 2; Sibylline Oracles 5.143, 159-60, 434; and Apocalypse of Baruch 10:1-3; 11:1; 67:7.
68. Beagley, The “Sitz im Leben” of the Apocalypse, 81 (italics added).
69. Russell, The Parousia, 350 (italics added).
70. Currie, Rapture, 306.
71. Morris, The Revelation Record, 323.
72. Kenneth L. Gentry, The Beast of Revelation, rev. ed. (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2002), 245.
73. Russell, The Parousia, 349-50.
74. Ibid., 349. See also Balyeat, Babylon, the Great City of Revelation, 87-88; Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, 362-63; and Emery, An Evening in Ephesus with John, the Son of Zebedee, 107-8.
75. For the arguments as to why the events in Galatians 2:1-10 likely transpired in Acts 11:27-30 see Stanley D. Toussaint, “The Chronological Problem of Galatians 2:1-10,” Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (October–December 1963): 334-40.
76. Thomas L. Constable, “Notes on 1 Corinthians,” www.soniclight.com, 12 (accessed on July 27, 2008).
77. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.25.8.
78. For a helpful chart depicting this theme see Stanley D. Toussaint, “Acts,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983; reprint, Colorado Springs: Cook, 1996), 349.
79. C. Marvin Pate and J. Daniel Hays, Iraq—Babylon of the End-Times? (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 108-9.
80. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.15.2; 2.25.8; 3.1.2; and Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.2. For further discussion see Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th rev. ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 794.
81. Scholars holding this view include Loraine Boettner, Roman Catholicism (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1962), 117-23; E. W. Bullinger, The Apocalypse or “The Day of the Lord” (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1909; reprint, London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1972), 554; E. Schuyler English, “Was St. Peter Ever in Rome?” Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (October–December 1967): 317; Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, rev. ed. (Tustin, CA: Ariel, 1994), 1003; Robert G. Gromacki, New Testament Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974), 351; Larkin, The Book of Revelation, 157; Henry Clarence Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1943), 285; Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary, 37 n. 121; and idem, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary, 206.
82. Henry Alford, The Greek Testament: With a Critically Revised Text: A Digest of Various Readings: Marginal References to Verbal and Idiomatic Usage: Prolegomena: And a Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co., 1866; reprint [4 vols. in 2], Chicago: Moody, 1958), 4:128-29; and Gromacki, New Testament Survey, 351. While Moule rejects the notion that Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13 is a code to insulate the church from Rome, he still interprets Babylon symbolically for Rome in order to communicate the place of the church’s exile (C. F. D. Moule, “The Nature and Purpose of 1 Peter,” New Testament Studies 3 [October 1956]: 8-9).
83. Interestingly Emery places Babylon of 1 Peter 5:13 in quotation marks, thus indicating its nonliteralness while at the same time not similarly punctuating the place names mentioned in 1:1 (An Evening in Ephesus with John, the Son of Zebedee, 107).
84. Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary, 206.
85. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology, 1003; and Gromacki, New Testament Survey, 352.
86. Larkin, The Book of Revelation, 157.
87. The Magi may have had an awareness of the messianic significance of the star as well as the timing of Messiah’s birth because of their familiarity with Old Testament prophecies (Num. 24:17; Dan. 9:25). Balaam was a resident of Babylon (Num. 22:5; Deut. 23:4). Daniel gave his prophecies during the Babylonian captivity (Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Messianic Christology [Tustin, CA: Ariel, 1998], 144-45).
88. Larkin, The Book of Revelation, 157; Morris, The Revelation Record, 323; and Pink, The Antichrist, 237.
89. Moshe Beere, “Judaism (Babylonian Judaism),” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 3:1083.
90. However, this argument should not be pushed too far. Although פְּרָת in Jeremiah 13:5 is typically translated as “Euphrates,” some have suggested that this word merely refers to a spring near Jerusalem and Anathoth, symbolizing the coming Babylonian deportation that would take Judah captive east of the Euphrates (Charles H. Dyer and Eugene H. Merrill, Nelson Old Testament Survey, ed. Charles R. Swindoll and Roy B. Zuck [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001], 602-3; and Charles C. Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible: New American Standard Bible [Chicago: Moody, 1995], 1175).
91. Russell, The Parousia, 347.
92. G. H. Lang, The Revelation of Jesus Christ: Select Studies (London: Paternoster, 1948), 302 (italics his).
93. Strabo, Geography 16.1.5.
94. Pliny, Natural History 6.30.
95. Josephus, TheAntiquities of the Jews 18.9.8-9.
96. Caligula died in AD 41.
97. Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament, 285.
98. Josephus, TheAntiquities of the Jews 15.2.2.
99. Philo, Legatio ad Gaium 36.282.
100. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology, 1003.
101. Ibid.
102. A. W. Fortune, “Babylon in the NT,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 1:391; Kuhn, “babulwvn,” 516; and Pate and Hays, Iraq—Babylon of the End-Times, 108.
103. Ogden, The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets, 327, 438-39.
104. DeMar, End Times Fiction, 128.
105. Bass, Back to the Future, 385; and Ogden, The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets, 327.
106. Wallace, The Book of Revelation Consisting of a Commentary on the Apocalypse of the New Testament, 365, 368.
107. Ibid., 368; and 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), 428.
108. Emery, An Evening in Ephesus with John, the Son of Zebedee, 108.
109. Bullinger, The Apocalypse or “The Day of the Lord,” 503-4; H. A. Ironside, Lectures on the Book of Revelation (New York: Loizeaux, 1930), 259; and Pink, The Antichrist, 260-61.
110. 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), 387.
111. Ibid., 386; and Pink, The Antichrist, 264.
112. Bullinger, The Apocalypse or “The Day of the Lord,” 510 (italics added).
113. Similarly because Satan is not a “father of lies” but “the father of lies” (John 8:44), he is the source of all falsehood.
114. Dogmatism regarding the assertion that the location of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Genesis 2 is the same as the rivers bearing these identical names later on should be avoided. The extent to which the flood altered the topography of the pre-flood world is unknown.
115. Seiss, The Apocalypse, 389-90. See also Bullinger, The Apocalypse or “The Day of the Lord,” 508; Dyer, World News and Bible Prophecy, 153; idem, The Rise of Babylon, 168; and Fruchtenbaum, Footsteps of the Messiah, 237-38.
116. Johnson, “Revelation,” 556.
117. Ibid., 563.
118. Garland, A Testimony of Jesus Christ, 42-43, 203-4.
119. Ironside, Lectures on the Book of Revelation, 293.
120. Seiss, The Apocalypse, 390 (italics added). See also Bullinger, The Apocalypse or “The Day of the Lord,” 508.
121. At least three reasons support the assertion that Salem in Genesis 14:18 is Jerusalem. First, Salem is synonymous with or parallel with Zion in Psalm 76:2. Second, elsewhere Scripture indicates that the Valley of Shaveh or the King’s Valley (Gen. 14:17) was located near Jerusalem (2 Sam. 18:18). Third, Josephus equated Salem with Jerusalem (Josephus, The Anitquities of the Jews 1.10.2). For further discussion see Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, trans. M. E. J. Richardson, rev. ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 2:1539.
122. Garland, A Testimony of Jesus Christ, 41.
123. Ironside, Lectures on the Book of Revelation, 293.
124. Seiss, The Apocalypse, 391.