Have The Prophecies In Revelation 17-18 About Babylon Been Fulfilled? Part 5

By Andrew M. Woods

The first four articles in this series analyzed eleven issues in Revelation 17-18 that preterists use to support the view that Babylon in these chapters represents first-century Jerusalem. This article deals with additional problems with equating Babylon and first-century Jerusalem mostly from outside chapters 17-18.

Arguments Used By Preterists

Preterists present several arguments from outside the text of Revelation 17-18 in seeking to identify Babylon as first-century Jerusalem. These include (a) prophetic “time texts,” (b) appeals to extrabiblical sources, (c) literary contrasts between the harlot and the New Jerusalem, (d) the assumption of Revelation’s immediate relevance to a first-century audience, and (e) the assumption of Revelation’s complete understandability to first-century readers. This section shows how each of these arguments is invalid.

Time Texts

The book of Revelation uses the words τάχύ and τάχει (“shortly” or “quickly,” 1:1; 2:16; 3:11; 11:14; 22:6, 7, 12, 20), ἐγγύς (“near” or “at hand,” 1:3; 22:10), and μέλλω (“about to,” 1:19; 3:10), and preterists believe these words mean that most of John’s prophecies were fulfilled in the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.[1] According to Jerusalem advocates, these words narrow the interpretive possibilities for the identity of Babylon in Revelation 17-18 so that one must at least consider Jerusalem, an immediate oppressor of God’s people at the time John wrote the Apocalypse.[2] As Russell explains, “Rome, Heathen or Christian, lies altogether outside the apocalyptic field of view, which is restricted to ‘things which shortly must come to pass.’ To wander into all ages and countries in the interpretation of these visions is absolutely forbidden by the express and fundamental limitations laid down in the book itself.”[3]

However, Hitchcock’s discussion regarding how nonpreterists have interpreted Revelation’s “time indicators” reveals the availability of other more preferable options besides the chronological view espoused by preterists.[4] Such options include understanding these terms as communicating certainty, time from God’s point of view, imminency, and quality rather than chronology. Preterists err in assuming that these words are technical expressions that always have the same chronological definition every time they are used. In fact each of these terms has a broad semantic range and therefore their meaning must be determined by the context rather than through the imposition of a “one-size-fits-all” grid. In other words, given the broad semantic range of these terms, context is critical in determining whether the chronological meaning or another meaning is appropriate. Because the context of Revelation involves global events that have not yet come to pass (6:8; 9:15; 17:15), it is improbable that a chronological meaning should be assigned to these words. Therefore the other options are more attractive.

While Revelation’s “timing texts” pose no obstacle to the futurist interpretation, they pose at least three problems for preterist interpreters. First, the preterist understanding of Revelation’s timing texts exposes the hermeneutical inconsistency inherent in their system. Because of their understanding of Revelation’s timing texts, preterists believe they are justified in figuratively interpreting most of Revelation so that its prophecies were fulfilled in AD 70. But why are the timing texts to be understood literally while most of the contents of Revelation are to be understood nonliterally? Such internal inconsistency is apparent in Sproul’s hermeneutic when he says, “We can interpret the time references literally and the events surrounding the parousia figuratively.”[5]

Second, by using the time texts to argue that Christ’s coming would not take place in the distant future, but instead took place in the first century, preterists come dangerously close to setting a specific date for the Lord’s return. Such a practice violates Christ’s clear teaching (Matt. 24:36, 42, 44; 25:13; Acts 1:6-7). Preterists might reply that Scripture only prohibits setting a day or hour for the Lord’s return rather than a month or year. However, Thomas observes that such a “response resembles the justification for date-setting given by some who have set dates for Christ’s return during the closing decades of the twentieth century.”[6]

Third, preterist interpretive problems are further compounded by the fact that Revelation’s timing texts are found at the end of the book as well as the beginning (ταχύ and τάχει in 22:6, 7, 12, 20, and ἐγγύs in 22:10). Even partial preterists themselves identify the use of these words in Revelation’s last chapter.[7] While the partial preterist system still advocates a future bodily appearing of Christ, the resurrection of the unsaved, and final judgment (20:7-15),[8] the use of τάχύ and ἐγγύs in chapter 22 destroys this notion, since the existence of these “time indicators” at the end of the book logically leads to the conclusion that the entire book, not just part of the book’s predictions, was fulfilled in AD 70. If the use of τάχύ and ἐγγύs in the early chapters of Revelation leads partial preterists to conclude that most of the book’s prophecies were fulfilled in AD 70, then, to be consistent, preterists should also conclude that these words at the end of the book mean that the entire book was fulfilled in AD 70.

Actually it is impossible to be a consistent partial preterist because the logical corollary of partial preterism is full preterism. In actuality the designations “partial preterist” and “full preterist” are misnomers. Partial preterists more logically should be labeled “inconsistent preterists” while full preterists should be referred to as “consistent preterists.” For partial preterists to be consistent, they must believe that humanity is currently experiencing the new heavens and the new earth because of the use of τάχύ and ἐγγύs in chapter 22. Therefore in this view there is now no more Satan (20:10), sea (21:1), death, crying, pain (21:4), sun (22:5), moon (21:23), night (21:25), evil (21:27), or curse (22:2-3).[9] Gentry even admits as much by maintaining that humanity is presently experiencing the new heavens.[10]

For partial preterists to be consistent, they also must believe that Christ’s second advent as described at the end of Revelation has already taken place.[11] However, denying the yet-future second advent moves outside the pale of orthodoxy and into the camp of heterodoxy or heresy.[12] Thus the partial preterist understanding of Revelation’s timing texts dangerously flirts with unorthodoxy.

Extrabiblical Material

Preterists appeal to two extrabiblical sources in an attempt to find a basis for identifying the Babylon of Revelation 17-18 as a first-century city. These sources include apocalyptic literature and Qumran material.

Apocalyptic literature. Preterism has difficulty explaining how Revelation’s seemingly global language was fulfilled in the local events of AD 70. For example Revelation predicts that the greatest earthquake in human history will occur (16:18), that Babylon’s reach will extend to all peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues (17:15), and that Babylon will reign over all the kings of the earth (17:18). How could these prophesied global events have been fulfilled in the local Jewish war of the first century? Preterists seek to escape the tension between Revelation’s global language and understanding that this language suggests fulfillment in the local events of AD 70 by assuming that Revelation shares the same features as a special group of noncanonical writings called apocalyptic literature that flourished from the intertestamental period into the first century[13] “where symbolism is the rule and literalism is the exception.”[14] Because such writings were characterized by apocalyptic hyperbole, preterists argue that Revelation’s seeming global language is in actuality local language whenever the book’s textual details seem to go beyond a mere AD 70 fulfillment.

According to Hanegraaff, “Apocalyptic hyperbole [was used] to underscore the distress and devastation that would be experienced when Jerusalem and its temple were judged.”[15] Gentry similarly notes that “the preterist view does understand Revelation’s prophecies as strongly reflecting actual historical events in John’s near future, though they are set in apocalyptic drama and clothed in poetic hyperbole.”[16] For example Preston appeals to the hyperbolic description of an earthquake in extrabiblical apocalyptic writings in explaining how John’s description of the greatest earthquake in human history (16:18) is actually a past local event. According to Preston, “The Sibylline Oracles . . . says [sic] ‘all creation was shaken’ when Jerusalem fell. This was not a reference to a literal earthquake.”[17]

However, building a hermeneutic of hyperbole from noncanonical material is problematic in two respects. First, since the preterist system takes some aspects of the Apocalypse literally,[18] how does one determine which aspects of Revelation are literal and which ones are not? Second, the assumption that the genre of Revelation is the same as noncanonical apocalyptic works can be countered by noting that similarities the book has with these noncanonical works are outweighed by notable differences between the two.[19]

For example although extrabiblical apocalyptic literature was typically pseudonymous, the Book of Revelation bears the name of its author (1:1, 4, 9; 22:8). Moreover, Revelation does not share the pessimism of the extrabiblical apocalyptists, who despaired of all present human history.[20] Rather, Revelation reflects the optimistic view that God is working redemptively through the Lamb presently (5:6) as well as in the future. Furthermore noncanonical apocalyptic literature has no epistolary material. By contrast, seven ecclesiastical epistles are found in Revelation 2-3. In addition noncanonical apocalyptic literature did not emphasize moral imperatives. Although there are occasional exceptions to this rule (1 Enoch 91:19; 4 Ezra; 7:118), the apocalyptists were not generally motivated by a strong sense of moral urgency. The reason for this is their conviction that they were part of the righteous remnant. They saw their role as one of encouraging the remnant to endure, remain faithful, and have hope rather than persuading people to turn from known sin.[21] By contrast, Revelation includes several moral imperatives. Humanity’s need for repentance is included in Christ’s exhortations to the seven churches (2:5, 16, 21-22; 3:3, 19), and references to the need for repentance are also elsewhere in the book (9:20-21; 16:9, 11).

Moreover, the coming of Messiah in Jewish extrabiblical apocalyptic literature is predicted as yet future. By contrast, Revelation portrays Christ as having already come and laid the groundwork for His future coming through His redemptive death (5:6). Similarly, while the noncanonical material concerned exclusively a future generation (1 Enoch 1:2), Revelation concerns John’s generation (chaps. 2-3) and a future generation (chaps. 4-22). In addition, unlike noncanonical apocalyptic material, Revelation claims several times to be prophecy (1:3; 22:7, 10, 18-19). In fact Revelation employs the term προφήτης or its cognates eighteen times.[22] Also extrabiblical apocalyptic literature has a different view of suffering than that in Revelation. In apocalyptic writings suffering is something that emanates from outside of God or from forces opposing Him rather than from God Himself. These apocalyptists did not see suffering as something good to which one is to submit. By contrast, in Revelation suffering comes from the hand of God (5:5).[23]

Furthermore noncanonical apocalyptic literature is pseudo-prophecy or vaticinia ex eventu (“prophecies after the fact”). In other words apocalyptists typically portrayed a historical event as future prophecy. However, this is not so in Revelation, where John looked from his own day into the future.[24] In addition Revelation is dominated by an already-not-yet tension as John looked to the needs of his own day as well as the distant future. This tension is not evident in apocalyptic writings outside of Scripture.[25] Furthermore extrabiblical apocalyptic writings often use numbers nonliterally.[26] By contrast Revelation uses many numbers to indicate specific, literal-count units. For example many futurist scholars believe that the 1,260 days (12:6) and 42 months (11:2; 13:5) are direct references to unfulfilled aspects of Daniel’s seventy-weeks prophecy (Dan. 9:24-27). Hoehner’s calculations indicate that the fulfilled aspects of this prophecy had the potential of being accurate to the exact day.[27] Therefore it stands to reason that the prophecy’s unfulfilled aspects will also be fulfilled to the minutest detail, and the numbers 1,260 and 42 should be taken as literal numbers. According to Thomas, “no number in Revelation is verifiably a symbolic number. On the other hand, nonsymbolic usage of numbers is the rule.”[28]

Moreover, Revelation’s heavy dependence on Ezekiel and Daniel also raises questions as to whether the book should be categorized with the noncanonical apocalyptic writings. Ezekiel and Daniel prophesied four hundred years before apocalyptic literature became dominant in the intertestamental period. Also Revelation 12:1 borrows imagery from Genesis 37:9-10, which took place in the patriarchal era nearly eighteen hundred years before apocalypticism began to flourish.

A further variance from noncanonical apocalyptic writings includes Revelation’s unique epistolary introduction (1:4-5).[29] In addition some apocalyptic writings, such as the Book of Watchers, fail to present a precise eschatological scheme.[30] Yet many have argued that Revelation 6-19, with its telescoping and fixed seven-year duration, does communicate a fixed eschatological scheme.[31] A chronology of events also seems to be employed in chapters 20-22. Finally the noncanonical material is not the product of divine inspiration, whereas Revelation was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Oepke notes that Revelation “has many affinities with literature to which we now refer [i.e., apocalyptic], though it cannot be simply classified with it.”[32] Because of the differences between Revelation and noncanonical apocalyptic material, it is inadvisable to build a hermeneutic from the noninspired books as a basis for interpreting the Apocalypse. Thus Johnson warns that “any identification of the Apocalypse with the writings of the extrabiblical apocalyptists must be severely qualified. Indeed, the reader would do well to reexamine every method of interpreting Revelation that rests on this assumed similarity.”[33]

Qumran hermeneutics. Another problem for the preterist interpretation concerns how prophecies aimed at Babylon in Revelation 17-18 can be understood as speaking of first-century Jerusalem’s fall. Jerusalem advocates appeal to Qumran material that takes Old Testament prophecies originally aimed at Nineveh and Babylon and redirects these prophecies to condemn first-century Jerusalem. For example the Qumran scroll 1QpHab, through the use of pesher hermeneutics, redirects portions of the text for the purpose of predicting imminent judgment on Jerusalem rather than on the Chaldeans.[34] Jerusalem proponents argue that if the Qumran community redirected Old Testament texts so as to predict imminent judgment on Jerusalem, then John could also be using the same procedure by taking the Old Testament concept of Babylon and redirecting it so that it too predicted the coming AD 70 judgment on Jerusalem. Ford explains, “If Ephraim was seen in such a light and such metaphors were used of her at the time the Qumran commentaries were written, the same accommodation might well have been made years later with reference to Jerusalem under the Romans.”[35] However, while not seeking to devalue the contribution of the Qumran material for New Testament studies, the notion that Revelation 17-18 makes use of the same hermeneutic found among the Dead Sea Scrolls is a mere assumption. Three reasons make this apparent.

First, while the above-cited scrolls employ the terms “Ephraim,” “Jerusalem,” and “priests of Jerusalem,” such references are absent in Revelation 17-18. In fact throughout the Apocalypse John employed the terms “Jerusalem” (3:12; 21:2, 10), “Israel” (7:4; 21:12), “every tribe of the sons of Israel” (7:4), “tribe of Joseph” (7:8), “sons of Israel” (2:14), and “Zion” (14:1); yet no such references occur in Revelation 17-18.

Second, because Qumran was a breakaway community, it may not be reflective of the Jewish tradition in which the Scriptures were given.[36] Third, one must also proceed with caution before equating biblical and Qumran hermeneutics because the Qumran community commonly disregarded the original context of a citation. After researching several explicit quotations, Fitzmyer found only seven quotations where the community considered the original context. Eleven were modernized, and twelve were accommodated and then applied in the new eschaton.[37]

Contrasts Between The Harlot And The New Jerusalem

To identify Babylon of Revelation 17-18 as first-century Jerusalem, preterists also point to parallels and contrasts between the harlot of chapter 17 and the New Jerusalem of chapter 21.[38] Parallels include a similar introduction by the angel responsible for the pouring of the seven bowls of wrath (17:1; 21:9). Contrasts relate to their character (the harlot versus the bride; 17:1b; 21:9b), roles as cities (wicked city versus holy city; 17:18; 21:2), environments (carried away into the wilderness versus carried away to a mountain; 17:3; 21:10), and attire (purple and scarlet versus white and glorious; 17:4; 19:8; 21:11). According to preterists the deliberate contrasts with the Jerusalem from above in chapter 21 identify the harlot as the Jerusalem from below.[39]

However, while persons of all theological persuasions note that parallels exist between the harlot and the bride, preterists have pushed the point of the comparison too far by insisting that the parallels mean the harlot was renamed. The point of these contrasts may be to highlight two differing programs and destinies. Beale explains:

Other contrasts in the immediate broader context (21:1-22:5) between the Babylonian harlot and the new Jerusalem highlight John’s intention to set the two cities over against one another as polar opposites. . . . What is the point of the contrast between the two cities? Part of the answer is that Revelation 21 portrays the true community of God in contrast to and in replacement of the false community of the world, which also includes professing Christians who are really not genuine believers. . . . The primary contrast between the whore and the bride is to exhort the faltering churches, plagued by compromise with the whore, to stop compromising and increasingly reflect the facets of their coming consummated excellence in anticipation of it.[40]

First-Century Relevance

Preterists contend that interpreting Revelation’s prophecies as pertaining to the distant future makes the book irrelevant to the seven churches (chaps. 2-3), which were John’s original addressees. Because of the preterists’ belief that John’s prophecy must have been immediately applicable to his original audience, preterists dismiss interpretations of Babylon in chapters 17-18 that place the fulfillment of this prophecy in an era other than the first century. Preston incorporates this perspective in his criticism of a futurist understanding of these chapters. He says that if “Revelation simply depicts a yet future time . . . one has to ask how all of this was relevant, or comforting to John’s audience. This idea suggests that John was writing to suffering saints, longing for vindication, and yet, God ignores those urgent pleas to tell them of events and times unrelated to their traumatic situation. This completely undermines the ‘occasional’ nature of the book.”[41]

However, it is quite common throughout the Old Testament prophetic material for God to comfort His people in the present by furnishing them with a vision of the distant future. The book of Isaiah amply refutes the idea that a prophecy must relate directly to the writer’s original audience. Isaiah sought to address not only the needs of his own day (Isa. 1-35) but also the needs of a future generation of Jews in the Babylonian captivity (Isa. 40-55).[42] Also Isaiah’s futuristic prophecies recorded in Isaiah 40-66 were designed to comfort Israel in her present adverse circumstances in 700 BC. In fact the messianic predictions in Isaiah 53 were not fulfilled in the lifetime of Isaiah’s original audience but were fulfilled nearly seven centuries later. This same pattern is seen in other Old Testament prophetic material (Ezek. 34-48; Amos 9:11-15; Zech. 12-14). Revelation simply follows this Old Testament pattern by giving persecuted believers (Rev. 2-3) a futuristic vision, communicating that at the end of history God will ultimately conquer all forces that oppress the church (Rev. 4-22).

Initial Understandability

Preterists reject the futurist understanding of Revelation on the grounds that the book’s message would have been unintelligible to its original readers.[43] According to preterists the identity of Babylon in Revelation 17-18 must have been clearly identifiable to the book’s first readers so that they could specifically know from whom or what they must separate (18:4).[44] This factor prompts preterists to identify the harlot as Jerusalem, which was an oppressor of God’s people at the time the book was written.

However, while the book’s basic message of ultimate victory over evil is discernible, it is doubtful that the specific characters or players in the prophecy could be fully grasped by the original audience. Walvoord explains how prophecy’s original readers seldom grasped all the specific details relayed in a vision.

One of the common assumptions of those who reject the futurist position is that the Apocalypse is the creation of John’s thinking and was understandable by him in his generation. . . . The difficulty with this point of view is twofold: (1) Prophecy, as given in the Scripture, was not necessarily understandable by the writer or his generation, as illustrated in the case of Daniel (Dan. 12:4, 9). It is questionable whether the great prophets of the Old Testament always understood what they were writing (cf. 1 Peter 1:10-11). (2) It is of the nature of prophecy that often it cannot be understood until the time of the generation which achieves fulfillment. The assumption, therefore, that the book of Revelation was understandable in the first generation or that it was intended to be understood by that generation is without real basis.[45]

The preterist position regarding Jerusalem is built on the notion that the original readers could specifically identify the harlot. However, the genre of prophecy is such that specific understanding is often beyond the comprehension of the first audience.

Weaknesses With The Preterist Position

The following pages discuss additional weaknesses with the preterist position. They include the date of the Apocalypse, unfulfilled Old Testament prophecy regarding Babylon, and Babylon’s idolatrous description.

Revelation’s Late Date

Preterists contend that most of the prophecies found in Revelation were fulfilled in AD 70. Obviously this view is untenable if it can be established that the book was written after AD 70. Interpreters may hold to the ideal, historical, or the futurist view of Revelation regardless of whether they believe the Book of Revelation was written in the time of Nero (ca. AD 65) or of Domitian (ca. AD 95). However, for preterists any date other than a pre-AD 70 date for the composition of the book destroys their view. This point is conceded by both nonpreterists and preterists alike. In issuing the following critique of Chilton’s preterist commentary on Revelation, Carson summarizes the dating problem plaguing the Babylon-equals-first-century-Jerusalem view. “Chilton ties his interpretation of the entire book to a dogmatic insistence that it was written before AD 70, and that its predictions are focused on the destruction of Jerusalem. Although there are some excellent theological links crafted in this book, the central setting and argument are so weak and open to criticism that I cannot recommend the work very warmly.”[46]

According to preterist Gentry, “If the late-date of around AD 95-96 is accepted, a wholly different situation would prevail. The events in the mid and late 60s of the first century would be absolutely excluded as possible fulfillments.”[47] Such early date dependency is problematic for the preterist interpretation, since most New Testament scholars date the composition of the Apocalypse during the reign of Domitian rather than Nero. In fact past and recent scholarship has adequately responded to the arguments preterists have advanced for the early date of Revelation.[48]

Unfulfilled Old Testament Prophecy Regarding Babylon

A problem for the preterist interpretation of Babylon relates to unfulfilled Old Testament prophecies concerning Babylon’s destruction. These unfulfilled Old Testament passages are Isaiah 13-14; Jeremiah 50-51; and Zechariah 5:5-11.

Isaiah 13-14. Isaiah 13-14 has many elements that suggest a yet-future fulfillment.[49] For example chapter 13 relates Babylon’s destruction to the “day of the Lord” (vv. 6-9). This phrase can refer to any time that God intervenes in history (Exod. 32:34; Ezek. 13:5; 30:3; Amos 5:18, 20). However, the term is overwhelmingly employed in eschatological contexts (Isa. 2:12; Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11, 31; 3:14; Obad. 15; Zeph. 1:7, 14; Zech. 14:1; Mal. 4:5; 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:2; 2 Pet. 3:10).

Isaiah 13:10-13 also refers to cosmic disturbances. Sproul notes how the existence of similar language in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:29-31) poses a problem for the preterist interpretation. “This passage describes the parousia in vivid and graphic images of astronomical perturbations. It speaks of signs in the sky that will be visible. . . . Perhaps no portion of the Olivet Discourse provides more difficulties to the preterist view than this one.”[50]

Isaiah 13:11-12 predicts that Babylon’s fall will result in people becoming scarcer than gold. Isaiah also predicts that Babylon will experience sudden cataclysmic destruction similar to that suffered by Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 19). In fact Babylon’s destruction will be final, thereby rendering her permanently uninhabitable (vv. 20-22). Also chapter 14 indicates that universal rest and peace (vv. 5-8) and Israel’s restoration (vv. 1-4) will transpire following Babylon’s destruction. Such national regeneration is typically portrayed in Scripture as a future event (Rom. 11:25-27). This will mean that people will experience the full knowledge of God (Hab. 2:14) and that Israel will return to her land (Isa. 14:1) and overcome her enemies (v. 2). Because it is difficult to connect these events with the historic fall of Babylon in 539 BC (Dan. 5), they must be pointing to a future event.[51]

Jeremiah 50-51. Others have noticed a similar pattern in Jeremiah 50-51.[52] For example 50:3 predicts that an enemy from the north will destroy Babylon and yet the Persians came from the east. In addition, 51:8 predicts that Babylon will be destroyed suddenly, and yet Babylon’s fall was a prolonged process encompassing many centuries. Jeremiah predicted that Babylon will be completely destroyed (50:3, 13, 26, 39-40; 51:29, 43, 62), and yet Babylon remained vibrant long after 539 BC. In fact the city was influential during the Persian period as Daniel served there administratively (Dan. 5:30; 6:1-3).

Moreover, Jeremiah 51:26 predicts that Babylon’s destruction will result in her building materials never being used again and yet “many towns and villages have been built out of the remains of Babylon.”[53] Also Jeremiah told God’s people to flee Babylon when she is destroyed (Jer. 50:8; 51:6, 45) and yet “there is no record of the Jews fleeing Babylon when she fell to Medo-Persia.”[54] Interestingly Scripture specifically states that Daniel remained in Babylon after it fell to Persia (Dan. 5:28, 30-31; 6:1-3). Also Jeremiah predicted the reuniting and national repentance of Israel following Babylon’s fall (Jer. 50:2, 4-5, 20; 51:50), and yet such a reuniting never took place after Babylon fell in 539 BC. The Old Testament often portrays the reunification of the northern and southern kingdoms (Ezek. 37) and the restoration of the nation (Jer. 31; Amos 9:11-15) as yet-future events. Again because it is difficult to connect these events with the historic fall of Babylon in 539 BC (Dan. 5), they must point to a future event. Walvoord summarizes this point as follows: “It is obvious from both Scripture and history that these verses have not been literally fulfilled. The city of Babylon continued to flourish after the Medes conquered it, and though its glory dwindled, especially after the control of the Medes and the Persians ended in 323 BC, the city continued in some form . . . until AD 1000 and did not experience a sudden termination such as anticipated in this prophecy.”[55]

Zechariah 5:5-11. Many commentators decline to apply a normal hermeneutic to these chapters in Isaiah and Jeremiah, arguing instead that they are merely hyperbolic. They contend that Isaiah 13-14 and Jeremiah 50-51 were “essentially fulfilled” in 539 BC.[56] However, even granting this premise, the preterist is still unable to escape the implications of unfulfilled Old Testament prophecy regarding Babylon because of Zechariah 5:5-11, which also predicts a future prophetic role for Babylon.

Zechariah saw a woman named “Wickedness” carried away in an ephah in the last days to the land of Shinar where a temple will be built for her. To grasp the meaning of the vision the following five elements must be understood.[57] First, Zechariah saw a basket. Second, in the basket Zechariah saw a woman signifying wickedness. Third, Zechariah saw the woman being pushed back into the basket as a heavy lid was placed on top of her. This incarceration of the woman in the basket signifies that God is in control and will release her in His time.

Fourth, Zechariah saw the basket being transported to the land of Shinar. The Old Testament repeatedly identifies Shinar as Babylonia, which is the locale where the Tower of Babel as well as Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon once stood (Gen. 10:10; 11:2; 14:1, 9; Isa. 11:11; Dan. 1:2). Fifth, Zechariah was told that the woman will be released one day and set on the pedestal of a house in Shinar. The Hebrew word for house is בַּיִת. This is the same word used to describe the temple Solomon would build for God (2 Sam. 7:13). Because this part of the vision conjures up religious imagery, it communicates that the woman will be vested with future religious authority. In other words, wickedness and religion will once again return to the land of Babylonia.

What is striking about this vision is that it was given in 519 BC (Zech. 1:7), twenty years after the fall of Babylon in 539. Thus the timing of Zechariah 5:5-11 prevents this prophecy from being interpreted as having already been fulfilled in the same manner in which Isaiah 13-14 and Jeremiah 50-51 are sometimes understood as “essentially fulfilled” in Babylon’s historic fall. How can Zechariah 5:5-11 be connected with the fall of historic Babylon in 539 BC if this prophecy was given twenty years after the fact? According to Newton, “That this event predicted in this remarkable passage remains still unaccomplished, is sufficiently evident from the fact of Zechariah’s having prophesied after Babylon had received that blow under which it has gradually waned. Zechariah lived after Babylon had passed into the hands of the Persians.”[58]

Futuristic fulfillment. If these passages remain unfulfilled, a future revived and destroyed Babylon represents the only time in history when these passages will be fulfilled. This perspective becomes evident by noting the similarities between Jeremiah 50-51 and Revelation 17-18.[59] For example both passages associate Babylon with a golden cup (Jer. 51:7; Rev. 17:3-4; 18:6), dwelling on many waters (Jer. 51:13; Rev. 17:1), intoxicating the nations (Jer. 51:7; Rev. 17:2), and having the same name (Jer. 50:1; Rev. 17:5; 18:10). Moreover, both passages liken Babylon’s destruction to a stone sinking into the Euphrates (Jer. 51:63-64; Rev. 18:21) and depict Babylon’s destruction as sudden (Jer. 51:8; Rev. 18:8), caused by fire (Jer. 51:30; Rev. 17:16; 18:8), final (Jer. 50:39; Rev. 18:21), and deserved (Jer. 51:63-64; Rev. 18:21). Furthermore both passages indicate that as a result of Babylon’s destruction God’s people will flee (Jer. 51:6, 45; Rev. 18:4) and heaven will rejoice (Jer. 51:48; Rev. 18:20).

Revelation 17-18 speaks of the same elements as in Zechariah 5:5-11: a woman (Rev. 17:1), wickedness (v. 2), and religion (v. 2) in Shinar or the city of Babylon (v. 18; 18:10).[60] Thus regarding Zechariah 5:5-11, Pink observes, “The vision or prophecy contains the germ which is afterward expanded and developed in such detail in Rev. 17 and 18.”[61] As Seiss notes, “There are Scripture prophecies which I am at a loss to understand except upon the theory that Babylon will be restored, become a commercial centre, and be the last of the world’s great centers to go down under the terrific visitations of the day of the Lord.”[62]

Injury to preterism. Since these Old Testament passages have never been completely fulfilled but instead await a future fulfillment, an additional problem is created for the preterist interpretation, since it leaves no place for these passages to be realized. Unlike preterists, many futurists have no difficulty explaining when these Old Testament prophecies regarding Babylon’s fall will be fulfilled, since they see either Revelation 17-18 or only chapter 18 as speaking of a revived Babylon that will be destroyed in the coming tribulation period. In other words, if Isaiah 13-14 and Jeremiah 50-51 have not yet been fulfilled, then there is no place in the preterist system for these Old Testament prophecies to be realized.

This is true because the preterist understands Babylon of Revelation 17-18 as Jerusalem. Therefore there is no way for the Old Testament passages regarding Babylon’s fall to be fulfilled in preterism unless the meaning of these passages is also changed from Babylon to Jerusalem. Because these Old Testament prophecies were originally directed at Babylon (Isa. 13:1; Jer. 50:1; Zech. 5:11), the preterist view has no way of relating these Old Testament prophecies to the book of Revelation. The preterist system fails to recognize that the Old Testament passages regarding Babylon’s fall have never been fulfilled.

Babylon’s Idolatry

Another problem with identifying Babylon of Revelation 17-18 as first-century Jerusalem involves John’s description of idolatrous Babylon. The sin of idolatry was uncharacteristic of first-century Judaism. Because first-century Jews recognized that idolatry had caused the exile, this realization had the tendency to rid first-century Israel of this particular sin (Rom. 2:22). “The captivity of the people of Israel at the hands of the Babylonians produced a permanent cure for the sin of idolatry. Never again, even to the present time, has Judaism succumbed to idolatry. In the gospels there is virtually nothing about idolatry.”[63]

However, in Revelation 17-18 John employed five words that are often associated with the sin of idolatry when used in other sections of Scripture and also elsewhere within the Apocalypse.[64] They include δαιμονίων (Rev. 18:2; 9:20; 1 Cor. 10:19-20), πορνεία (Rev. 17:1-2; 2:14, 20; 9:21; Ezek. 16:15, 21, 36), φαρμακειᾳ (Rev. 18:23; 9:21; 21:8; 22:15; Gal. 5:20), βδέλυγμα (Rev. 17:4-5; 21:8, 27; 22:15), and ἀκάθαρτα (Rev. 17:4; 2 Cor. 6:16-17; Eph. 5:5). These five words in Revelation 17-18 point to Babylon’s heavy involvement with idolatry. Such a description is inconsistent with a first-century Jerusalem interpretation of these chapters, since idolatry was uncharacteristic of first-century Judaism.

Conclusion

While the previous articles analyzed eleven issues within Revelation 17-18 that seemingly support the preterist identification of Babylon as first-century Jerusalem, this article has dealt with additional problems with equating Babylon and first-century Jerusalem mostly from outside the text of Revelation. Five arguments used by preterist-Jerusalem proponents were raised and answered. And three other arguments were presented to show that the preterist-Jerusalem interpretation is faulty. They include the date of the Apocalypse, unfulfilled Old Testament prophecy regarding Babylon, and Babylon’s idolatrous description.

Notes

1. Kenneth L. Gentry, “A Preterist View of Revelation,” in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 41-45.
2. David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Tyler, TX: Dominion, 1987), 421.
3. 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), 484-85. See also Don Preston, Who Is This Babylon? rev. ed. (Ardmore, OK: JaDon, 2006), 112; Gary DeMar, End Times Fiction: A Biblical Consideration of the Left Behind Theology (Nashville: Nelson, 2001), 124; idem, Last Days Madness, 4th rev. ed. (Powder Springs, GA: American, 1999), 358; Joseph Balyeat, Babylon, the Great City of Revelation (Servierville, TN: Onward, 1991), 57-58; Kenneth J. Davies, Babylon the Harlot City (Bradford, PA: International, 2000), 13, 43; and Arthur M. Ogden, The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets: Commentary on Revelation, 3rd ed. (Pinson, AL: Ogden, 2006), 22, 440.
4. Mark Hitchcock, “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation” (PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2005), 86-96.
5. R. C. Sproul, The Last Days according to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 66 (italics added). While Sproul’s quotation pertains to the Olivet Discourse, the same internal inconsistency is apparent in the way preterists approach Revelation’s “time texts” in comparison with the rest of the Apocalypse.
6. Robert L. Thomas, “A Classical Dispensationalist View of Revelation,” in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 228.
7. Sproul, The Last Days according to Jesus, 139; Kenneth L. Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), 134; idem, The Beast of Revelation, rev. ed. (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2002), 24; DeMar, Last Days Madness, 358; idem, End Times Fiction, 57; Balyeat, Babylon, the Great City of Revelation, 57-58; and Davies, Babylon the Harlot City, 20.
8. Gentry, “A Preterist View of Revelation,” 46 n 25; 86.
9. Thomas Ice, “The Great Tribulation Is Past: Rebuttal,” in The Great Tribulation: Past or Future? Two Evangelicals Debate the Question, ed. Thomas Ice and Kenneth L. Gentry (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 160.
10. Gentry, “A Preterist View of Revelation,” 86-89.
11. In his partial preterism Kenneth L. Gentry locates the second advent in Revelation 20:9 (He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology, 2nd and rev. ed. [Tyler: TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1997], 431).
12. Ice, “The Great Tribulation Is Past: Rebuttal,” 162-63. Even partial preterists have no problem referring to full preterism as unorthodox (e.g., Doug Van Meter, “The Dating Game,” Searching Together 33 [fall–winter 2005]: 34, and [spring 2006]: 2).
13. Apocalyptic literature flourished around the time of Revelation’s composition. The Book of Enoch, Apocalypse of Baruch, Book of Jubilees, Assumption of Moses, Psalms of Solomon, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Sibylline Oracles are all part of this literary era. Works of this genre share the following characteristics: extensive use of symbolism; visions as the major means of revelation (Rev. 1:10-11); angelic guides (1:1); activity of angels and demons (12:7-8); focus on the end of the current age and the inauguration of the age to come (1:3); urgent expectation of the end of earthly conditions in the immediate future (21:1); the end as a cosmic catastrophe; salvation that is paradisal in character (chaps. 21-22); manifestation of the kingdom of God (11:15); a mediator with royal functions (3:7); dualism with God and Satan as the leaders; pessimism about man’s ability to change the course of events; other-worldly journeys (4:1-2); the catchword “glory” (4:11); and a final “showdown” between good and evil (19:11-21). The above citations from Revelation show that it has at least some affinities with these extrabiblical works. This list is adapted from Frederick J. Murphy, Early Judaism: The Exile to the Time of Jesus (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 130-33.
14. Steve Gregg, ed., Revelation: Four Views: A Parallel Commentary (Nashville: Nelson, 1997), 11.
15. Hank Hanegraaff, The Apocalypse Code (Nashville: Nelson, 2007), 30 (italics added).
16. Gentry, “A Preterist View of Revelation,” 38 (italics added).
17. Preston, Who Is This Babylon? 98.
18. This issue was discussed under the heading “Babylon’s Influence” in the third article in this series (“Have the Prophecies in Revelation 17-18 about Babylon Been Fulfilled? Part 3,” Bibliotheca Sacra 169 [July–September 2012]: 341-61).
19. Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 23-28; idem, Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New versus the Old (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2002), 323-38; Alan F. Johnson, “Revelation,” in TheExpositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 400-402; Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, rev. ed., New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 6-8; Leon Morris, Revelation, rev. ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 25-27; William Varner, “Apocalyptic Literature,” in Dictionary of Premillennial Theology, ed. Mal Couch (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996), 53-54; and John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ: A Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1966), 23-25.
20. Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 13.
21. Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 227.
22. Thomas, “A Classical Dispensationalist View of Revelation,” 224, n 90.
23. James Kallas, “The Apocalypse—an Apocalyptic Book?” Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (March 1967): 69-80.
24. Leon Morris, Apocalyptic, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 94.
25. Ibid.
26. Gregg, Revelation: Four Views: A Parallel Commentary, 11-12. According to W. Taylor Smith, “The symbolic or, to speak more generally, non-literal use is very frequent in the Jewish literature of the period extending from BC 150 to about AD 100, the period which includes the time covered by the Gospels. The following are a few examples out of many. We read of 7 ‘heavens’ (2 En. 3:1), ‘7 angels’ (1 En. 81:5), ‘7 high mountains, 7 large rivers, and 7 great islands’ (1 En. 77:4, 5, 8). ‘Man is said to have been made by the divine wisdom of 7 substances’ (2 En. 30:8), ‘and to have received 7 natures’ (2 En. 30:9). ‘Seven great works were made on the first day of creation’ (Jub. 2:3); ‘Adam and Eve lived 7 years in paradise’ (Jub. 3:15); ‘at the Deluge 7 sluices were opened in heaven, and 7 fountains of the great deep in earth’ (Jub. 5:24); ‘and Jacob is said to have kissed his dying grandfather 7 times’ (Jub. 22:26) (“Numbers,” in A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, ed. James Hastings [New York: Scribner, 1908], 2:248).
27. Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), 115-39.
28. Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 408.
29. J. Ramsey Michaels, Interpreting the Book of Revelation, Guides to New Testament Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 22.
30. John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 56.
31. Harold W. Hoehner, “Evidence from Revelation 20,” in A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, ed. Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 245-61.
32. Albrecht Oepke, “καλύπτω,” 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), 578. See also Charles Feinberg, Millennialism: The Two Major Views (Winona Lake, IN: BMH, 1985), 27-28; Irving L. Jensen, Jensen’s Survey of the New Testament (Chicago: Moody, 1981), 498, n 6; and Henry Clarence Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1943), 316-17.
33. Johnson, “Revelation,” 401-2.
34. 1QpHab 9:2-7; 12:5-10. See also 4QpNah 3-4 ii7-11.
35. J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975), 284.
36. Qumran’s breakaway status is even acknowledged by Ford. “Through commerce the Jews could be involved in idolatrous practices and customs unacceptable to their brethren; hence the separation of communities like Qumran from mainline Judaism” (ibid., 286).
37. Joseph Fitzmyer, “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament,” New Testament Studies 7 (July 1961): 305-33.
38. Gentry, “A Preterist View of Revelation,” 77-78; idem, He Shall Have Dominion, 394-96; Ralph E. Bass, Back to the Future: A Study in the Book of Revelation (Greenville, SC: Living Hope, 2004), 386-87; Ogden, The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets, 443; Ford, Revelation, 286-87, 301; Russell, The Parousia, 485-86; Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, 422; idem, Paradise Restored (Tyler, TX: Reconstruction, 1985), 187; Cornelis Vanderwaal, Hebrews–Revelation, vol. 10 of Searchthe Scriptures (Saint Catharines, ON: Paideia, 1979), 110-11; Philip Carrington, The Meaning of Revelation (London: S.P.C.K., 1931), 276, 294; 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), 426, 460. Gregg explains, “The earthly Jerusalem is clearly in view in earlier chapters. To bring Rome into the picture at this point would introduce a third city and destroy the symmetry of the book” (Revelation, 404). Alan James Beagley also writes, “The major part of this Act concerns ‘the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God’ (21:2), a Jerusalem without a temple (21:22). But what happened to the original, earthly Jerusalem and its temple? If we adopt the usual interpretation of the earlier parts in the Book of Revelation, we are totally in the dark concerning this. But if what we have argued here is correct, the way has already been prepared for this scene: the fall of earthly Jerusalem and the temple has already been described symbolically in chapters 11 and 17-18” (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], 112).
39. Jerusalem proponents also note that the New Testament often contrasts the Jerusalem from above with the Jerusalem from below (Gal. 4:21-26; Heb. 11:10, 16; 12:22).
40. G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 1118-19. Also Mounce observes, “The angel is undoubtedly the one who in 17:1 summoned John to witness the judgment of the great prostitute. This seems to be the purpose of the identical introductions. It also draws attention to the contrast between the great prostitute (the wicked city of Babylon) and the bride of the Lamb (the holy city Jerusalem). One is of the earth, symbolizing the unbridled passion of evil, and the other descends from heaven, the epitome of all that is pure and beautiful” (The Book of Revelation, 388-89).
41. Preston, Who Is This Babylon? 116-17.
42. See John N. Oswalt, “Who Were the Addressees of Isaiah 40-66?” Bibliotheca Sacra 169 (January–March 2012): 33-47.
43. According to Russell, “But is it intelligible? The answer to this is, Was it written to be understood? Was a book sent by an apostle to the churches of Asia Minor, with a benediction on its readers, a mere unintelligible jargon, an inexplicable enigma, to them? That can hardly be. Yet if the book were meant to unveil the secrets of distant times, must it not of necessity have been unintelligible to its first readers—and not only unintelligible but even irrelevant and useless. . . . What purpose could it have answered to send them a document which they were urged to read and ponder, which was yet mainly occupied with historical events so distant as to be beyond the range of their sympathies, and so obscure that even at this day the shrewdest critics are hardly agreed on any one point? . . . The only tenable, the only reasonable, hypothesis is that it was intended to be understood by its original readers” (The Parousia, 366).
44. Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, 421.
45. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 22-23.
46. D. A. Carson, New Testament Commentary Survey, 6th ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 148.
47. Gentry, The Beast of Revelation, 111 (italics added).
48. J. Ritchie Smith, “The Date of the Apocalypse,” Bibliotheca Sacra 45 (April–June 1888): 297-328; Hitchcock, “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation”; and Robert L. Thomas, “Theonomy and the Dating of Revelation,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 5 (fall 1994): 185-202.
49. Arthur Pink, The Antichrist (Swengel, PA: Depot, 1923; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1988), 240-43; Henry Morris, The Revelation Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1983), 48; G. H. Lang, The Revelation of Jesus Christ: Select Studies (London: Paternoster, 1948), 300-304; and George Hawkins Pember, The Antichrist, Babylon, and the Coming of the Kingdom (Miami Springs, FL: Schoettle, 1988), 84-105.
50. R. C. Sproul, The Last Days according to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 42.
51. Some aspects of Isaiah 13-14 and Jeremiah 50-51 lend themselves to a past fulfillment. Examples include references to the Medes (Isa. 13:17; Jer. 51:11, 28), ancient weaponry (Jer. 50:9, 14; 51:11, 21, 27, 56), and idols such as Bel and Marduk (Jer. 50:2; 51:44). However, other parts of these chapters make a complete past fulfillment of them unlikely. Regarding the reference to the Medes in Isaiah 13:17 Charles H. Dyer writes that the Medes could be seen as modern-day Kurds, who occupy the mountainous region occupied by the Medes of Isaiah’s day (The Rise of Babylon, rev. ed. [Chicago: Moody, 2003], 146-47). See also Chuck Missler, “The Fall of Babylon versus the Destruction of Babylon,” 5, online: www.pre-trib.org (accessed October 28, 2008).
52. Charles H. Dyer, “Jeremiah,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1985; reprint, Colorado Springs: Cook, 1996), 1199-1200; idem, “The Identity of Babylon in Revelation 17-18 (Part 2),” Bibliotheca Sacra 144 (October–December 1987): 443-49. See also Lang, The Revelation of Jesus Christ:Select Studies, 300-304; Morris, The Revelation Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Revelation, 348; and Pink, The Antichrist, 243-45.
53. Lang, The Revelation of Jesus Christ: Select Studies, 304.
54. Dyer, “The Identity of Babylon in Revelation 17-18 (Part 2),” 447.
55. John F. Walvoord, The Nations in Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967), 63-64.
56. Homer Heater, “Do the Prophets Teach That Babylonia Will Be Rebuilt in the Eschaton?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41 (March 1998): 23-43; and Robert B. Chisholm, Handbook on the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 53, 213.
57. Pink, The Antichrist, 281; and Charles H. Dyer and Eugene H. Merrill, Nelson’sOld Testament Survey, ed. Charles R. Swindoll and Roy B. Zuck (Nashville: Word, 2001), 825-26.
58. Benjamin Willis Newton, Babylon: Its Future, History, and Doom. With Remarks on the Future of Egypt and Other Eastern Countries, 3rd ed. (London: Wertheimer, 1890), 64.
59. Dyer, “The Identity of Babylon in Revelation 17-18 (Part 2),” 441-43; E. W. Bullinger, The Apocalypse or “The Day of the Lord” (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1909; reprint, London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1972), 546; Pink, The Antichrist, 287-90; and Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary, 307.
60. Mark Hitchcock, The Second Coming of Babylon (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2003), 109.
61. Pink, The Antichrist, 281.
62. 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), 398.
63. Ronald F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, and R. K. Harrison, eds., Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, rev. and updated ed. (Nashville: Nelson, 1995), 592.
64. Johnson, “Revelation,” 555-56, 566; and Beale, The Book of Revelation, 849, 922-23.