Have The Prophecies In Revelation 17-18 About Babylon Been Fulfilled? Part 3

By Andrew M. Woods

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

The first two articles in this series focused on the fact that arguments preterists rely on to identify Babylon of Revelation 17-18 as first-century Jerusalem are inadequate. Among the arguments discussed were Babylon’s harlotry, alliance, adornment, and title. This article focuses on Babylon’s persecution, influence, sins, and wealth.

Babylon’s Persecution (Rev. 17:6; 18:20, 24; 19:2)

Preterists claim that Babylon represents first-century Jerusalem, based on two factors related to persecution. The first involves Babylon’s persecution of the apostles and prophets (18:20). Preterists believe that this statement could describe only first-century Jerusalem, since she is the only entity responsible for persecuting both Old Testament prophets (Matt. 23:35; Luke 13:33; Acts 7:52) and New Testament apostles (Luke 11:49). Gentry observes, “Rome was stained with the blood of the saints. Yet Rome had only recently entered the persecuting ranks of God’s enemies; throughout Acts Jerusalem and the Jews were the main persecutors. Furthermore, Rome was not guilty of killing any of ‘the prophets’ of the Old Testament, as was Jerusalem.”[1]

The preterist view is workable only if the apostles and the prophets (οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ προφῆται) of Revelation 18:20 are technical terms that always mean Old Testament prophets and Jesus’ apostles. However, the New Testament demonstrates a broader semantic range for these terms. For example the noun “prophet” and the verb “to prophesy” are frequently used in reference to New Testament prophets (Acts 11:27-28; 13:1; 15:32; 21:10; 1 Cor. 12:28-29; 14:1-5, 29, 32; Eph. 2:20).[2] John used the word “prophetess” (προφῆτιν) to describe a New Testament-era false teacher (Rev. 2:20). The Scriptures also use the Greek noun προφῆται (“prophets,” Rev. 11:10) and the Hebrew verb וַנִבְּאוּ (“and they will prophesy,” Joel 2:28 [Heb., 3:1]) to depict the work of eschatological prophets. Thus the word “prophets” in Revelation 18:20 does not automatically refer to Old Testament prophets.[3] While the preterist decision to allow the term “prophets” to be interpreted according to the Old Testament is commendable, the word’s semantic range as well as Revelation’s global context (17:15) opens up broader possibilities.

The same can be said of the word “apostles.” Although this word is sometimes used in the technical sense in reference to Christ’s original twelve disciples (Acts 1:21-26; Eph. 2:20), the New Testament also uses the word in a nontechnical sense of a “sent one” or a common missionary (Acts 14:4, 14; Rom. 16:7; 2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25). Revelation also employs the word in a nontechnical sense (Rev. 2:2) in referring to a false apostle (2 Cor. 11:5, 13; 12:11). In fact the weight of the evidence may favor the nontechnical use of the term in Revelation 18:20, since John elsewhere added the genitive expression τοῦ ἀρνίου to the word ἀποστόλων when he wanted to communicate the word’s technical usage (“apostles of the Lamb,” Rev. 21:14). Because no similar formula is employed in 18:20, John may have been speaking merely of a common “sent one” or missionary.[4]

Understanding apostles and prophets in this nontechnical sense opens up other interpretive options for the identification of the harlot besides first-century Jerusalem. Rome is an option, since Rome certainly persecuted both New Testament apostles and prophets of the early church, such as Peter and Paul who were martyred in Rome. A revived Roman Empire of the future also becomes a viable possibility, since this system will persecute the eschatological prophets (Rev. 11:7) as well as the apostles or “sent ones” of that future day. A revived Babylon must also be considered, since that future city may imitate its past pattern of persecution (Jer. 51:34-36, 49) and wage war against the eschatological prophets and the “sent ones” of the future.

Preterists seek to identify Babylon as first-century Jerusalem based on a second factor involving persecution. It relates to various New Testament statements that seem to indicate that Jerusalem was responsible for the martyrdoms of all the prophets (Matt. 23:35; Luke 11:50; 13:33; Acts 7:52). Preterists argue that these verses state that since Jerusalem was responsible for killing all the prophets, then the martyrdom of the prophets in Revelation 18:20, 24 must have also been perpetrated at the hands of first-century Jerusalem. “If the righteous blood of all the prophets is to come upon Jerusalem, then how can the righteous blood of all the prophets also come upon Babylon? The only solution to this question is our original premise that Babylon is indeed merely a figurative name used by John to describe apostate Jerusalem.”[5]

This connection between Matthew 23:35 and Revelation 18:20, 24 receives further support if preterists are correct in their assessment that “in Revelation 18:24 John alludes directly to Jesus’ words.”[6] Terry laments, “Blood of prophets and of saints–Comp. Matt. xxiii, 34, 35; Luke xi, 49-51; xiii, 33, 34. Needlessly do some expositors, in spite of Jesus’s [sic] words, go outside of Jerusalem to find this martyr-blood.”[7]

Preterists are correct in noting that these passages in Matthew and Revelation refer to the persecution of the prophets as provoking divine justice. However, one point of similarity is not enough to warrant equating these verses, since the larger context indicates that they are describing two different events. Five observations make this apparent. First, Revelation 18:24 is not a verbatim recitation of Christ’s words. Even Ford concedes this point when she notes, “There is an affinity of thought, but not of word, with Matt 23:37, where Jerusalem is said to kill the prophets and stone those sent.”[8] Thus it is possible that John was not speaking of the same situation Christ was addressing in Matthew 23. Rather John was simply applying Christ’s words to a new situation.

Second, while Jesus’ comments in Matthew 23 were aimed at Jerusalem, John was directing his statement in Revelation 18:24 to Babylon. Jerusalem and Babylon are treated as two separate entities throughout Scripture.

Third, in Matthew 23:35 the word “prophets” is governed by the expression “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah.” But no similar limitation is placed on “prophets” in Revelation 18:20, 24. Thus the prophets addressed in Matthew 23 differ from the prophets in Revelation 18. The former are prophets of Israel, while the ethnicity of the latter remains undefined.

Fourth, the context of Matthew 23 is local, while the context of Revelation 18 is global. Although the word “all” is used in the former, it is unlikely that it is universal since it is also governed, as noted, by the expression “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah” (Matt. 23:35; Luke 11:51). The context of Luke 13:33 also seems local. The notion that a prophet cannot die outside Jerusalem (Luke 13:33) cannot be a universal statement since Abel, Jeremiah, Paul, and John all died outside the city.[9] Rather, the statement in Luke 13:33 is controlled by the subsequent verse, which speaks primarily of first-century Israel. By contrast, no similar limitation is found in Revelation 18:20, 24. In fact the context of verse 24 appears global because of the words, “of all who have been slain on the earth.” While global clues abound in John’s discussion of Babylon (17:15), no similar clues are evident in Matthew 23.

Fifth, unlike the context of Revelation 18, the context of Matthew 23 is restorative. John compared Babylon’s destruction to a stone sinking into the Euphrates River never to be found again (Rev. 18:21-23). On the other hand, as Toussaint notes, Matthew 23:39 “describes Israel’s future repentance when they will mourn because of their great sin (Zech. 12:10).”[10] Furthermore Toussaint observes that preterists typically fail to consider the restorative impact of Matthew 23:39. He says he “found little discussion on this verse in preterist literature.”[11]

The preceding five reasons indicate that Matthew 23:35 and Revelation 18:20, 24 are describing two separate events. Therefore the attempt of preterists to identify Babylon based on similarities between these verses is invalid. The assertion that Babylon is responsible for the deaths of the prophets and apostles and the supposed similarity between Matthew 23:35 and Revelation 18:20, 24 are not sufficient to identify Babylon as first-century Jerusalem.

Babylon’s Influence (Rev. 17:18)

The two major issues in the preterist interpretation relating to Babylon’s influence concern the meaning of “the great city” and the meaning of Babylon reigning “over the kings of the earth.”

The Great City (v. 18a)

Preterists understand Revelation’s subsequent references to “the great city” (16:19; 17:18; 18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21) based on the initial use of the phrase in 11:8. There “the great city” (τῆς πόλεως τῆς μεγάλης) is an obvious reference to Jerusalem, since it is identified as the place where Christ was crucified.[12] Thus preterists assert that the term “great city” in chapters 17-18 must also refer to Jerusalem.[13] Part of the impetus for this view is that if the great city of Jerusalem is symbolically presented as Sodom and Egypt (actually enemies of Jerusalem) in 11:8, then it should be no surprise that the great city of Jerusalem would also be symbolically disguised as her ancient enemy Babylon in Revelation 17-18.[14]

However, three factors make it difficult to accept this preterist view of “the great city” in chapters 17-18. First, this interpretive procedure represents a hermeneutical error known as “illegitimate totality transfer.” This error arises when the meaning of a word or phrase as derived from its use elsewhere is then automatically read into the same word or phrase in a new context.[15] Advocates of the view that Babylon means Jerusalem commit this error when they define “the great city” in Revelation 17-18 based on the way the phrase is used in different contexts elsewhere in Revelation.

Preterists seek to weaken this objection by pointing to the contextual similarities between chapters 11 and 17-18.[16] Such similarities include the slaying of the prophets (11:7-10; 18:20), persecution (11:8; 17:6; 18:20, 24), destruction through an earthquake (11:13; 16:18), “destruction at the resurrection and vindication of martyrs” (11:15; 18:20, 24), the manifestation of the kingdom at the “time of persecution” (11:15; 19:16), and the fact that only judgment, not deliverance, is meted on the city.

However, similarity is not the same as equality. True, these chapters have some parallels. But many striking differences between these two sections of Scripture can also be noted. For example while the name Jerusalem is employed in the former (11:8), the name Babylon is employed in the latter (17:5). As contended earlier, preterists have not demonstrated why Jerusalem should be interpreted as a synonym for Babylon. Furthermore while the former records only the death of two prophets (11:7-10), the later records the destruction not only of many prophets but also of saints and apostles (18:20, 24). Moreover, while the earthquake in chapter 11 negatively impacted only a tenth of the city (v. 13), the earthquake in the latter divided the entire city into thirds (16:19a) and is called the greatest earthquake in human history (v. 18). Also, although the former is associated with the events of Revelation’s seventh trumpet judgment (11:15), the latter is associated with the events of Revelation’s seventh bowl judgment (16:17; 17:1). Also chapters 17-18 identify many items not found in chapter 11, such as water imagery (17:1, 15), and chapter 11 identifies many items not found in chapters 17-18, such as the temple (11:1-2), the forty-two-month and three-and-one-half-day durations (vv. 2, 9), the miracles and rapture of the two witnesses (vv. 5-6, 12), the exchanging of gifts (v. 10), the heavenly scene and temple (vv. 15-19), and the allusion to Sodom and Egypt (v. 8).

The preterist assumption that “the great city” is a technical expression meaning the same thing every time it appears in Revelation neglects the possibility that two “great cities” could be highlighted. Revelation could be highlighting both Jerusalem and Babylon. Even Preston concedes, “Now, of course, it must be admitted that it is possible theoretically, that the Apocalypse speaks of two different cities under that description.”[17] In fact in Revelation the same word often means different things in different contexts. For example the term “tribulation” (θλῖψις) refers to John’s tribulation in 1:9, the Thyatiran false prophetess’s tribulation in 2:22, and the eschatological tribulation in 7:14. Therefore different meanings can be assigned to the term “the great city.”

Nowhere did John indicate that Revelation highlights only one great city. Had this been his intention, he could have easily communicated it by including the adjective “only” (μόνον), which he often employed in his other writings (John 5:18; 11:52; 12:9; 13:9; 17:20; 1 John 2:2; 5:6). Rather than repeating the term “the great city” in order to equate Jerusalem and Babylon, possibly John repeated the term as an intentional literary device in order to contrast the differing divine programs for the two cities. Similarly God the Father’s name (7:3) and the beast’s name (13:16) inscribed on people’s foreheads do not mean the marks are the same; instead they highlight two different programs.

Second, preterists assume that because Jerusalem is given the symbolic names “Sodom” and “Egypt” in 11:8, Jerusalem can then be given the symbolic name “Babylon” in chapters 17-18. However, this assumption ignores the fact that John employed the word “spiritually” (πνευματικῶς) in 11:8 in order to signal to his readers that the names in this instance are to be understood figuratively. As mentioned earlier, because no similar formula is employed in chapters 17-18 regarding the term “Babylon,” John probably used it there in its ordinary sense.[18]

Third, because preterists define the term “the great city” from the way it is employed in chapter 11, they also face the burden of finding a past fulfillment of this chapter along with chapters 17-18. However, this is no easy task, since much of the rest of chapter 11 discusses the two witnesses who perform miracles, are slain, are gazed on by the world, lie dead for three and a half days, are resurrected, and ascend to heaven. Smith notes, “Do we find any trace of them in the siege of Jerusalem? Josephus has given us a detailed account of [the siege], yet there is not the faintest indication of anything resembling what is here portrayed.”[19] Also because the merism “small and great” (11:18) is found in 20:12, which is part of the futuristic section according to Gentry’s partial preterist system,[20] he is forced to give this merism a local interpretation in 11:18 while at the same time giving it a universal interpretation in 20:12. And the four terms λαῶν, φυλῶν, γλωσσῶν, ἐθνῶν in 11:9 should be given a universal interpretation, since the first occurrence of this nearly identical phrase in 5:9 is in a universal context.[21]

Reigning Over The Kings Of The Earth (v. 18b)

Preterists face a difficulty in explaining how first-century Jerusalem reigned over the kings of the earth (17:18b). They employ three explanations in an effort to harmonize this verse with their belief system. First, Russell notes that the term “earth” (γῆς) in the phrase “kings of the earth” can have a localized meaning as, for example, in Acts 4:26-27.[22] Second, preterists contend that Revelation 17:18b should not be approached with political literalism. Chilton explains, “If the city is Jerusalem, how can it be said to wield this kind of worldwide political power? The answer is that Revelation is not a book about politics; it is a book about the Covenant. Jerusalem did reign over the nations. She did possess a kingdom which was above all the kingdoms of the world. She had a covenantal priority over all the kingdoms of the earth.”[23]

Third, preterists assemble a host of biblical and extrabiblical texts in an attempt to demonstrate Jerusalem’s first-century influence.[24] Examples include references to Jerusalem as the great city (Jer. 22:8), the city of the great king (Matt. 5:35), the center of the earth (Ezek. 5:5; 38:12), the princess of the nations (Lam. 1:1), the joy of the earth (Ps. 48:2; Lam. 2:15), and the disseminator of God’s blessings to the world (Isa. 2:2-3; Mic. 4:1-2; Zech. 14:16-18). In extrabiblical materials Jerusalem is referred to as the great city,[25] a famous city,[26] a city esteemed holy by all of mankind,[27] and the strongest of all cities.[28]

However, these three arguments fail to explain how first-century Jerusalem satisfied the text’s requirement of reigning over the kings of the earth (Rev. 17:18b). First, regarding Russell’s attempt to define “earth” as the land of Israel (Acts 4:26-27), it was earlier demonstrated that earth (γῆς) could have a global meaning or a local meaning, depending on the context in which the word is used.[29] The context of Acts 4:26 is clearly local because of the limitation of “Israel” mentioned in verse 27. However, no similar limitation on γῆς exists in Revelation 17:18b. In fact the overall context of chapter 17 favors a global understanding rather than a local understanding of γῆς in 17:15. By defining γῆς based on a foreign, local context and then reading it into the global context of chapter 17, preterists again commit the error of an illegitimate totality transfer. Hitchcock asks, “Why would John need to say [in v. 18] that Jerusalem ruled over the kings of the land of Israel? This would be obvious.”[30]

Second, regarding Chilton’s decision not to interpret 17:18b through the lens of political literalism but rather through the prism of Jerusalem’s covenantal priority, one may ask why he interprets other portions of the Apocalypse literally.[31] For preterists to insist “that Revelation is not a book about politics; it is a book about the Covenant” is tantamount to changing the rules in the middle of the game. Third, regarding the preterist appeal to both biblical and extrabiblical sources in an effort to demonstrate first-century Jerusalem’s universal influence, none of the sources they use come close to articulating the type of universal authority John ascribed to Babylon in 17:18b.

A clue regarding the scope of Babylon’s reign is found in 1:5, which depicts Christ as ὁ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς (“the ruler of the kings of the earth”). This phrase is similar to 17:18b, which states that the great city has βασιλείαν ἐπὶ τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς (“kingship over the kings of the earth”). Except for the difference between “ruler” (ἄρχων) and “kingship” (βασιλείαν), these two phrases are practically identical. Since 1:5 pertains to Christ’s reign, it is obviously universal. Understanding that this verse refers to Christ’s universal reign receives further support when it is recalled that 1:5 is based on Psalm 89, which speaks of the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. That Psalm 89:27 furnishes the backdrop for Revelation 1:5 seems clear from the terms “firstborn” and “the kings of the earth,” which occur in both verses. Chilton asserts that John did not portray Babylon’s reign in political terms. However, if Revelation 1:5 communicates Christ’s universal, political, nonlocalized reign, then surely the nearly identical expression in 17:18b would also convey Babylon’s universal, political, nonlocalized reign. This notion of the universality of Babylon’s reign is buttressed through parallel passages that portray the antichrist’s reign in global terms (Dan. 7:23; Rev. 13:16-18).[32]

This universal scope of Babylon’s reign shows that the preterist assertion that Babylon represents first-century Jerusalem is false. “The demise of the great prostitute here shows the difficulty of the strict preterist view, for one would have to add that . . . Jerusalem was the woman who ruled the earth in the sense God had given her that position over the rest of the world. . . . However . . . Jerusalem did not have any control whatsoever over the rest of the world.”[33]

Far from ruling over the world in Christ’s day, Jerusalem was trampled down by Gentile powers (Luke 21:24). As Beale explains, “It is also fatal to the preterist view that the influence of Jerusalem was at its lowest in the two centuries preceding A.D. 70, whereas Babylon’s demise in Revelation 17-18 is an immediate fall from great power and prosperity.”[34] In fact “Jerusalem did not reign over the kings of the earth as Rev 17:18 requires. Jerusalem did not even reign over herself in the first century; she was in political bondage to Rome.”[35]

As explained above, preterists marshal both biblical and extrabiblical support in an attempt to show Jerusalem’s first-century influence. However, all that these sources reveal is that Jerusalem was a city of international reputation in John’s day, as it was in previous eras (2 Chron. 9:1-12). These sources all fall short of showing that Jerusalem had the type of unrestricted authority over the kings of the earth spoken of in Revelation 17:18b. Similarly Jerusalem today has an international reputation and is known throughout the world, but it does not exercise unhindered political authority over the world.

Although Rome is not referred to as “the great city” in Scripture, extrabiblical sources do give her this designation.[36] Rome also seems to have had a better claim than first-century Jerusalem in terms of ruling over the kings of the earth. According to Keener, “In John’s day, no one in the Roman Empire could have doubted that the city that ‘reigns over the kings of the earth’ meant Rome.”[37] First-century BC sources echo this sentiment. Dionysius of Halicarnassus described Rome as ruler over both land and sea,[38] and Diodorus indicated that Rome’s influence reached the ends of the inhabited world.[39]

“The great city” designation in Revelation 17:18 may parallel Nebuchadnezzar’s description of this city as “Babylon the Great” (Dan. 4:30). Interestingly Strabo referred to ancient Babylon as “the great city.”[40] Ruling over the kings of the earth may also be parallel to Isaiah’s depiction of ancient Babylon as “the queen of kingdoms” (Isa. 47:5). In conclusion John’s description of Babylon’s influence in Revelation 17:18 fails to match first-century Jerusalem. Not only is it improper to identify Jerusalem as “the great city” (17:18a) based on 11:8, but also it is important to note that first-century Jerusalem never reigned over the kings of the earth (17:18b).

Babylon’s Sins (Rev. 18:4-5)

In Revelation 18:4-5 God’s people are told to flee on account of Babylon’s sins. Preterists contend that this command was fulfilled in the church’s flight to Pella, and that John’s description of Babylon’s sins rising to heaven (v. 5) describes first-century Jerusalem.

The Command To Flee (v. 4)

Preterists associate John’s command for God’s people to flee Babylon with Christ’s command for the Jerusalemites to flee the city before its destruction (Matt. 24:15-20). Preterists further contend that this flight was fulfilled in the events surrounding the early church’s flight to Pella before AD 70,[41] as recorded by Eusebius.[42] However, there are several problems with connecting the prophecies of Revelation 18:4 and Matthew 24:15-20 with the events of Pella. First, Eusebius never gave any hint that he believed the flight to Pella was a fulfillment of Revelation 18:4.

Second, Gentry says the desolation of the temple (Matt. 24:15), which supposedly triggered the church’s flight to Pella, transpired during the Jewish War.[43] However, this chronology creates a problem for the preterist interpretation, since Eusebius explicitly placed the flight “before the war.” Schaff interprets Eusebius’s statement as conveying an AD 62 date for the flight. “Eusebius puts the flight to Pella before the war (πρὸ τοῦ πολέμου), or four years before the destruction of Jerusalem.”[44] Buswell responds to the assertion that in the Eusebius citation “the comma after, ‘before the war,’ shows that the warning, not the flight, took place before the war.”[45] Buswell notes that this proposition is refuted by Eusebius’s subsequent statement: “Here, those who believed in Christ removed from Jerusalem, as if holy men had entirely abandoned the royal city itself and the whole land of Judea. The divine justice, for their crimes against Christ and his apostles, finally overtook the Jews, totally destroying these evildoers from the earth.”[46] Thus Buswell concludes, “Clearly Eusebius believed that the removal to Pella took place before the destruction began.”[47]

In fact the flight would likely not have taken place during the war, since “Titus had built a wall completely around the city and had it guarded with extreme care.”[48] As Josephus explained, “For the Jews, along with all egress, every hope of escape was now cut off.”[49] Therefore “the removal to Pella fits Luke 21:20-23, but it cannot possibly fit Matthew 24:15ff. or Mark 13:14ff.”[50] In summary the fact that the early church’s flight to Pella (in AD 62) took place several years before the war (in AD 66-70) creates chronological problems for the preterist interpretation of Revelation 18:4 because preterists say this verse predicted the Pella flight in response to the temple’s desolation (Matt. 24:16-20) after the war had already begun.

Third, since “Jerusalem is situated and surrounded by mountains” and Pella is “in the low-lying foothills of the Transjordan Valley,” Christ’s command to flee to the mountains (Matt. 24:16) “could not be interpreted as descending to a lower elevation.”[51]

Fourth, “The urgency of an immediate departure (and of the threat of danger if the escapees delayed) does not accord with the prolonged Roman war, especially before the siege (three years), which would have offered ample opportunity to make a well-prepared escape.”[52]

Fifth, Christ’s admonition for prayer that the flight not take place in the winter (Matt. 24:20) seems strange in light of the fact that in the winter “stormy weather comes with torrential rains that make crossing wadis in the Judean hills treacherous.”[53] “Why would Jesus say that the Jewish people should pray for something he knew would not happen?”[54]

Sixth, “why would Jesus mention concern about the possibility of travel on the Sabbath, when rabbinic law prohibited going more than a Sabbath day’s journey (i.e., beyond the immediate vicinity of the city), when the prolonged war with Rome gave plenty of opportunity for escape on days other than the Sabbath?”[55]

While preterists face the above-described problems in associating Revelation 18:4 with the events surrounding the flight to Pella, the imagery of the verse fits well with the literal Babylon view. Numerous Old Testament texts speak of the flight of God’s people from Babylonian bondage (Isa. 48:20; 52:11; Jer. 50:8; 51:6, 9, 45, 50; Zech. 2:6-7). Thus it is unnecessary to go to sections of Scripture featuring Jerusalem in order to find a fulfillment for Revelation 18:4.

Sins Rising To Heaven (v. 5)

Preterists contend that John’s description of Babylon’s sins in 18:5 accurately describes first-century Jerusalem. They note that the allusion to the city’s sins rising to heaven is used elsewhere in Scripture to depict Jerusalem (Ezra 9:6).[56] While this same allusion also depicts Sodom’s sins (Gen. 18:21), preterists are quick to note that Revelation symbolically portrays Jerusalem as Sodom (Rev. 11:8).[57] Jerusalem advocates observe that 18:5 communicates that “Jerusalem’s sins (not her love) have cleaved to God” (Deut. 28:20, 60).[58] Preterists contend that the Jerusalem identification is strengthened by the recognition that the verse also indicates that God remembered (ἐμνημόνευσεν) Babylon’s sins. Preston notes, “While the word ‘remember’ sometimes refers to the simple mental recall of past events, in the Old Testament, ‘remember’ has a distinctly covenantal context. . . . After a concordance study, I have been unable to find a clear cut example where God remembered the sins of any nation except Israel.”[59]

However, the imagery of Revelation 18:5 does not uniquely describe Jerusalem. The notion of sins rising to heaven is equally applicable to Babylon. As Walvoord explains, “In verse 5 the sins of Babylon are declared to reach to the heavens with the result that God remembers, that is, judges her iniquities. . . . The fact that her sins have reached (Gr., kollaō, literally ‘glued’ or ‘wielded together,’ i.e., piled one on another as bricks in a building) unto heaven is an allusion to the Tower of Babel which began the wicked career of ancient Babylon.”[60]

Jeremiah applied similar imagery to Babylon when he said, “For her judgment has reached to heaven and towers up to the very skies” (Jer. 51:9).

Furthermore “remember” need not apply exclusively to Jerusalem, as Preston contends, since the imagery is equally applicable to Babylon. For example Old Testament Babylon boasted that no one saw her sin (Isa. 47:10). Yet in Revelation 18:5 John explained that God saw and remembered Babylon’s sins, and He was holding her accountable for her actions. Revelation’s depiction of Babylon’s fall is an answer to Israel’s prayer during the Babylonian captivity for God to remember the plight of Jerusalem and Edom’s part in it (Ps. 137:7) and to repay Babylon for the transgressions she committed against His chosen people (v. 8). Bullinger explains how God’s remembrance of Babylon’s sins fits well with the Tower of Babel. He notes, “This ‘remembrance’ implies a former rebellion: a rebellion which was repressed by dispersion, but is at the time of the end to find in re-union, another opportunity for outbreak. Thus, in the very same place and under the same circumstances, defiance of God meets with its final judgment.”[61]

In conclusion the divine admonition for God’s people to flee Babylon (Rev. 18:4) on account of her sins (v. 5) is inconsistent with what is known of first-century Jerusalem. The association of the command to flee with the early church’s flight to Pella is chronologically problematic. Also the imagery of Babylon’s sins rising to heaven is equally applicable to literal Babylon and therefore is not limited to Jerusalem.

Babylon’s Wealth (Rev. 18:11-16)

Another difficulty for the preterist view involves explaining how first-century Jerusalem was the center of the world’s commercial activity as portrayed in Revelation 18. Hitchcock observes, “In the first century, Jerusalem was never the world economic juggernaut described in these chapters.”[62] Preterists resort to four explanations in an attempt to answer this objection. Yet each of these explanations has limitations.

First, some preterists argue that Jerusalem was indeed the commercial center of the first-century world.[63] Here Jerusalem advocates quote Josephus, who said, “Judea is, moreover, not cut off from the amenities of the sea, because it slopes down towards the coast on a ridge extending as far as Ptolemais.”[64] Also Josephus pointed out that Herod had built a port in nearby Caesarea.[65] Beagley buttresses his argument for Jerusalem’s commercial prominence by finding many references to the list of goods enumerated in Revelation 18:11-15, 17-19 in Judea’s first-century commercial activity as recorded by Safrai and Stern.[66]

However, the case that Jerusalem represented a first-century commercial power is difficult to make. For one thing the value to Jerusalem of the Caesarean port is mitigated by the fact that Jerusalem is six hundred stadia[67] or forty-seven miles from Caesarea.[68] Even Preston admits, “Without question then, Jerusalem, while not geographically situated to favor such, was a major commercial center.”[69] Beitzel carefully describes and traces the three major international highways or commercial arteries of the ancient world (the Great Trunk Road, the King’s Highway, and the artery running westward from Assur to Troy). All three of them are geographically removed from Jerusalem.[70] Thus “unlike many other ancient cities, Jerusalem is neither a harbor city nor a city situated on trade routes.”[71] Moreover Hopkins well articulates the geographical conditions preventing Jerusalem from becoming an economic power.[72]

In addition Beagley concedes that the commercial items he identifies in Revelation 18 as part of Judea’s first-century commercial activity could also have easily been part of Rome’s commerce. “There is no reason, of course, to deny that Rome could have traded in such goods, but that does not mean that she was the only city to do so.”[73] Also Safrai and Stern, the very source that Beagley relies on to establish Jerusalem’s international commercial prominence, has language that detracts from Beagley’s argument. This source notes that Israel’s economy during this time primarily consisted of internal commercial activity. In other words the nation was weak in terms of its agricultural and manufactured exports. Not only did imports exceed exports but also what little agricultural self-sufficiency the nation enjoyed was negatively impacted by variations in the weather, overpopulation, inefficient Herodian public works projects, and Roman taxation. These conditions led to general poverty.[74] Israel benefited economically from the contributions of diaspora Jews as well as from the industriousness of Jewish farmers. However, these benefits were quickly absorbed through Rome’s reduction of Jewish land, Herodian confiscatory policy, and bandits.[75]

Second, other preterists seek to escape the tension between Babylon’s international commercial influence as depicted by John and first-century Jerusalem’s local commercial activity by transforming the phrase “merchants of the earth” (Rev. 18:11) into “merchants of the land” of Israel.[76] Gregg explains, “When we remember that ‘kings of the earth’ and ‘merchants of the earth’ can be translated as ‘rulers of the land (i.e., of Israel)’ and ‘merchants of the land (i.e., of Israel),’ respectively, the arguments against identifying Babylon with Jerusalem seem less conclusive.”[77] However, while γῆς can have a local or a universal meaning, the global understanding of “earth” rather than the local understanding of “land” better fits the context of Revelation 17-18.[78]

Third, other preterists argue that the goods mentioned by John have more to do with temple worship (John 2:13-16) than international trade. “When looked at in purely economic terms, these items point to a world trading power. Looked at theologically, the ‘cargoes’ relate to the temple, priesthood, and sacrificial system.”[79] However, this analysis breaks down when it is remembered that Revelation 17-18 is written in a commercial rather than a temple context. Although John used the word “temple” (ναός) sixteen times in thirteen verses (Rev. 3:12; 7:15; 11:1-2, 19 [twice]; 14:15, 17; 15:5-6, 8 [twice]; 16:1, 17; 21:22 [twice]), the word is not found in chapters 17-18. The context of these chapters is commercial rather than religious. Even Beagley concedes this point, for he writes, “Ford suggests that most of the items listed were used in the temple, but this may be an exaggeration.”[80]

Fourth, still other Jerusalem advocates interpret Babylon’s commercial activity through the lens of a lament pattern based on Ezekiel’s oracle against Tyre (Ezek. 26-28). In such a genre the writer was less concerned about economic details than he was about using a past judgment (Tyre) in order to show the severity of a coming future judgment (AD 70). Provan follows this approach and supports his argument by noting how John emended Ezekiel’s text at several places so that its content was relevant to Jerusalem rather than Tyre.[81] Ewing admits that he was attracted to Provan’s approach, since it liberated him from a literal interpretation of Babylon’s commerce. However, as mentioned earlier, preterists interpret other sections of the Apocalypse literally,[82] though here they have not done so. Furthermore if the commercial details of the chapter are to be understood nonliterally, then why do preterists insist on a literal interpretation of Provan’s textual emendations and John’s destruction language?

Even if preterists could harmonize their view with John’s description of Babylon’s robust sea trade, their case has not been adequately defended, as the competing positions can each make a credible case for a robust sea trade. For example just as Safrai and Stern have found that many of Babylon’s commercial elements were evident in the first-century trade of Judea, Bauckham has shown that these same elements are also associated with ancient Rome’s trade practices.[83] Moreover, Aristides, in a speech before the Roman imperial court in AD 155, referred to Rome as “the common trading center of mankind and the common market of the produce of the earth.”[84] Furthermore the total yearly commerce between Rome and the Far East is estimated by Pliny to have been 50 million sesterces or 2.5 million denarii.[85]

In addition the commercial prowess of ancient Babylon is evidenced through Zechariah’s association of Babylon with an ephah (Zech. 5:5-11). This depiction was probably designed to highlight Babylon’s commercial power since “an Ephah is the emblem of commerce” and “the symbol of the merchant.”[86] Also Babylon’s growing commercial power was apparent during the days of Alexander the Great. His plan to convert the Euphrates River into a commercial shipping avenue was apparent as he dug a harbor that was large enough for a thousand warships and as he built dockyards on the harbor.[87] Babylon’s commercial power is also evident in the way the Old Testament prophets depicted the Chaldeans as rejoicing in and worshiping their fishing industry (Hab. 1:15-16) as well as rejoicing in their ships (Isa. 43:14). In conclusion John’s depiction of Babylon’s wealth does not identify first-century Jerusalem, since the notion of a first-century Jerusalem commercial power is an unlikely proposition. Thus what John disclosed about Babylon’s persecution, influence, sins, and wealth does not identify the Babylon in Revelation 17-18 as first-century Jerusalem.

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), 75. See also idem, He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology, 2nd ed. (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1997), 393-94; Foy E. Wallace, The Book of Revelation Consisting of a Commentary on the Apocalypse of the New Testament (Nashville: Wallace, 1966), 383; Arthur M. Ogden, The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets: Commentary on Revelation, 3rd ed. (Pinson, AL: Ogden, 2006), 446-47; Philip Carrington, The Meaning of Revelation (London: S.P.C.K., 1931), 273; and Don Preston, Who Is This Babylon? rev. ed. (Ardmore, OK: JaDon, 2006), 90.
2. Thus Pierre Prigent explains, “The victims in [Rev.] 16:6 were the saints and the prophets (idem in 18:24), that is, the Christians and those among them who are distinguished by their exercise of a particular ministry” (Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John, trans. Wendy Pradels [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001], 490). See also Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Apocalypse (London: Wiley and Putnam, 1845), 2:337.
3. D. Ragan Ewing concedes, “The identification here of the prophets as Old Testament prophets is of course specifically related to the warnings of Christ rather than the Revelation text. The Apocalypse does not technically declare which prophets are in view” (“The Identification of Babylon the Harlot in the Book of Revelation” [Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2002], 89 n. 106). See also Ogden, The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets, 441.
4. Prigent summarizes, “We find the same pair ‘saints and prophets’ in [Rev.] 16:6 and 18:24. The prophets are Christians who are distinguished by a particular charisma (or ministry). It is therefore rather natural to interpret the third word in a similar fashion . . . that these apostles are not the twelve, who will be mentioned in 21:14, but itinerant ambassadors (cf. Rev 2:2)” (Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John, 511).
5. Joseph Balyeat, Babylon, the Great City of Revelation (Servierville, TN: Onward, 1991), 72, 202; Ogden, The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets, 341, 441-42; David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Tyler, TX: Dominion, 1987), 431-32, 465-66; idem, Paradise Restored (Tyler, TX: Reconstruction, 1985), 188; J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975), 300; 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; Cornelis Vanderwaal, Hal Lindsey and Biblical Prophecy (Saint Catharines, ON: Paideia, 1978), 107; idem, Hebrews–Revelation, vol. 10 of Search the Scriptures (Saint Catharines, ON: Paideia, 1979), 97; 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; 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), 496-97; and Gentry, “A Preterist View of Revelation,” 76.
6. Preston, Who Is This Babylon? 89.
7. Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics, 439. For nonpreterist commentators who say Matthew 23:33-34 influenced Revelation 18:24 see Henry Barclay Swete, Commentary on Revelation: The Greek Text with Introduction Notes and Indexes, 3rd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1911; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977), 241; Leon Morris, Revelation, rev. ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 217; and G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 923.
8. Ford, Revelation, 299.
9. Jeremiah died in Egypt, Paul in Rome, and John in Asia Minor. Preterists seek to weaken the force of this argument by noting that it was actually the Jews who instigated the authorities to cause these deaths (Preston, Who Is This Babylon? 90, 114). However, this argument is difficult to prove with certitude. For example in the case of Jeremiah, while one tradition indicates “that Jeremiah was stoned to death by the Jews at Tahpanhes . . . on the other hand, there is the Jewish statement that, on the conquest of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar, he, with Baruch, made his escape to Babylon, and died there in peace” (Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 3rd and rev. ed. [Chicago: Moody, 1971], 570).
10. Stanley D. Toussaint, “A Critique of the Preterist View of the Olivet Discourse,” Bibliotheca Sacra 161 (October-December 2004): 473.
11. Ibid., 472.
12. Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 94.
13. Russell, The Parousia, 487, 493; David B. Currie, Rapture: The End-Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind (Manchester, NH: Sophia, 2003), 306; Iain Provan, “Foul Spirits, Fornication and Finance: Revelation 18 from an Old Testament Perspective,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 64 (December 1996): 93; Beagley, The “Sitz im Leben” of the Apocalypse, 93; Ford, Revelation, 286; Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics, 434; Carrington, The Meaning of Revelation, 280; Balyeat, Babylon, the Great City of Revelation, 52; Gentry, “A Preterist View of Revelation,” 74; and Ogden, The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets, 333, 439.
14. Russell, The Parousia, 486; Gentry, “A Preterist View of Revelation,” 77; Gary DeMar, End Times Fiction: A Biblical Consideration of the Left Behind Theology (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 122, 129; idem, Last Days Madness, 4th rev. ed. (Powder Springs, GA: American, 1999), 359; and Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, 363.
15. James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), 217-18.
16. Preston, Who Is This Babylon? 55-56.
17. Ibid., 55.
18. Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary, 207. This issue was discussed under the heading “Babylon’s Title” in “Have the Prophecies in Revelation 17-18 about Babylon Been Fulfilled? Part 2,” Bibliotheca Sacra 169 (April–June 2012): 219-40.
19. J. Ritchie Smith, “The Date of the Apocalypse,” Bibliotheca Sacra 45 (April–June 1888): 308. Gentry’s explanation is improbable. He states that the two witnesses “probably represent a small body of Christians who remained in Jerusalem to testify against” the temple and that “they are portrayed as two, in that they are legal witnesses to the covenant curses” (He Shall Have Dominion, 421-22). Gentry employs a literal hermeneutic in understanding the temple, since it represents an internal argument for the preterist early dating scheme and the forty-two months in the early part of the chapter (11:1-2) (Kenneth L. Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation [Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989], 165-92; and idem, “A Preterist View of Revelation,” 66). Yet he uses a nonliteral hermeneutic in explaining the two witnesses in the next unit of the same chapter (11:3-14).
20. Ibid., 46 n. 25, and 86.
21. Thus Prigent concludes, “The list of categories of spectators is traditional in the book of Revelation; it emphasizes their universality. They are representatives of the entire world who have come to verify the death of the two witnesses” (Prigent, Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John, 355).
22. Russell, The Parousia, 453-55. See also Preston, Who Is This Babylon? 254-55; Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics, 435; and Wallace, The Book of Revelation Consisting of a Commentary on the Apocalypse of the New Testament, 375.
23. Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, 442. He notes, “When Israel was faithful to God, offering up sacrifices, for the nations, the world was at peace; when Israel broke the covenant, the world was in turmoil. The Gentile nations recognized this (1 Kings 10:24; Ezra 1:4-7; cf. Rom. 2:17-24)” (ibid., 443). See idem, Paradise Restored, 190; Kenneth J. Davies, Babylon the Harlot City (Bradford, PA: International, 2000), 9-10; Ewing, “The Identification of Babylon the Harlot in the Book of Revelation,” 60; and Ogden, The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets, 333, 439-40.
24. Vanderwaal, Hebrews–Revelation, 99, 103; Beagley, The “Sitz im Leben” of the Apocalypse, 67, 108; Preston, Who Is This Babylon? 51; Russell, The Parousia, 495; Ford, Revelation, 285; Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 392-93; Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics, 434-35; and Carrington, The Meaning of Revelation, 290.
25. Appian, Syrian Wars 50; Josephus, The Jewish War 7.8.7; and Sibylline Oracles 5.154, 413.
26. Josephus, The Jewish War 7.1.1; and Pliny, Natural History 5.15.70.
27. Josephus, The Jewish War 5.1.3.
28. Josephus, Against Apion 1.22.
29. This issue was given greater treatment under the heading “Babylon’s Harlotry” in the first article, “Have the Prophecies in Revelation 17-18 about Babylon Been Fulfilled? Part 1,” Bibliotheca Sacra 169 (January–March 2012): 80-89.
30. Mark Hitchcock, “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation” (PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2005), 175 n. 3.
31. Preterists typically take the following features of Revelation literally as they attempt to identify Babylon as first-century Jerusalem: Jerusalem (11:8), divisions of the city into thirds (16:19), the word “city” (11:8; 16:19; 17:18; 18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21), the seven hills (17:9), and the one-hundred-pound hailstones (16:21). Preterists also take other aspects of the Apocalypse literally, since they are useful in arguing for a Neronian date for the composition of the book: the temple (11:1-2), the number 666 (13:18), the forty-two-month reign of the beast (13:5), and the seven kings (17:10). See Gentry, “A Preterist View of Revelation,” 65, 68, 70, 74; and idem, He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology, 425-26.
32. Regarding 13:16 Robert H. Mounce observes, “The coupling of opposites (small, great; rich, poor; free, slave) is a rhetorical way of stressing the totality of human society (cf. 11:18; 19:5, 18; 20:12)” (The Book of Revelation, rev. ed., New International Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 259).
33. Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 628.
34. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 889.
35. Hitchcock, “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation,” 175 n. 3. Interestingly preterists go to great lengths to explain the many privileges Jerusalem received from Rome (Davies, Babylon the Harlot City, 9; and Ogden, The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets, 327-28 nn. 2-3). However, such argumentation ends up defeating the preterist view because it shows that Jerusalem was dependent on Rome for these privileges and thus was not ruling over the kings of the first-century world as required by the preterist view of Revelation 17:18b.
36. Josephus, The Jewish War 4.11.5; b.Pesah. 118b; Pesiq. Rab. 14.15; Eccl. Rab. 5:7.
37. Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 807. See also Steve Gregg, ed., Revelation: Four Views: A Parallel Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), 420.
38. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 1.9.1.
39. Siculus Diodorus 1.4.3.
40. Strabo, Geography 16.1.5.
41. Balyeat, Babylon, the Great City of Revelation, 90-91 n. 3; 123 n. 13; Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics, 385; Ogden, The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets, 337, 444; Currie, Rapture, 328; Carrington, The Meaning of Revelation, 290; and Wallace, The Book of Revelation Consisting of a Commentary on the Apocalypse of the New Testament, 379.
42. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.5.3.
43. Kenneth L. Gentry, “The Great Tribulation Is Past: Exposition,” in The Great Tribulation: Past or Future? Two Evangelicals Debate the Question, ed. Thomas Ice and Kenneth L. Gentry (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 46-48.
44. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (New York: Scribner, 1882; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 1:402 n. 1.
45. James Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963), 2:402.
46. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.5.3.
47. Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, 402. See also Ron J. Bigalke, “Preterism and Antiquity: Was Preterism a View of the Early Church?” Journal of Dispensational Theology 12 (March 2008): 50-51.
48. Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, 403. See also Bigalke, “Preterism and Antiquity,” 54-55.
49. Josephus, The Jewish War 5.12.3.
50. Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, 402. See also Bigalke, “Preterism and Antiquity,” 51.
51. J. Randall Price, “Historical Problems with a First-Century Fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse,” in TheEnd Times Controversy, ed. Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice (Eugene, OR: Harvest, 2003), 394.
52. Ibid.
53. Ibid.
54. Ibid., 394-95.
55. Ibid., 395.
56. Beagley, The “Sitz im Leben” of the Apocalypse, 98; and Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, 449.
57. Gregg, Revelation, 430.
58. Ford, Revelation, 302. See also Ralph E. Bass, Back to the Future: A Study in the Book of Revelation (Greenville, SC: Living Hope, 2004), 402; and Provan, “Foul Spirits, Fornication and Finance,” 94.
59. Preston, Who Is This Babylon? 99.
60. John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ: A Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1966), 260.
61. E. W. Bullinger, The Apocalypse or “The Day of the Lord” (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1909; reprint, London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1972), 563.
62. Hitchcock, “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation,” 175 n. 3. See also Jim McGuiggan, The Book of Revelation (Lubbock, TX: International, 1976), 267.
63. Currie, Rapture, 321; Carrington, The Meaning of Revelation, 277, 291; Davies, Babylon the Harlot City, 10-11; Ford, Revelation, 305-6; and Preston, Who Is This Babylon? 255-58; and Beagley, The “Sitz im Leben” of the Apocalypse, 109.
64. Josephus, The Jewish War 3.3.5.
65. Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 16.2.1.
66. S. Safrai and M. Stern, The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976), 2:669-79.
67. Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 13.11.2; and idem, The JewishWar 1.3.5.
68. Unger, Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 160.
69. Preston, Who Is This Babylon? 257 (italics added).
70. Barry J. Beitzel, The Moody Atlas of Bible Lands (Chicago: Moody, 1985), 65-69.
71. Ronald F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, and R. K. Harrison, eds., Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, rev. ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985), 655.
72. “Yet the city of Jerusalem which is the capital and focus of the people of Palestine, is in many respects ‘off the beaten track,’ and a long way from being the hub of this crossroads of the Middle East. It lies to the east of the water-parting of the central range of hills, hidden from the main international route which traverses the coastal plain, while to the east it faces directly onto the desert, the Wilderness of Judea, with the dark cliffs of Moab and Ammon seeming very close across the Jordan and the Dead Sea. Jerusalem is a minor crossroads of the two routes which serve the local population, but neither route has ever carried a large volume of international traffic. Although in many respects a world city, receiving pilgrims from all nations, often the capital of Palestine, always the spiritual goal of Christianity and Judaism, it has generally remained a small city and out of the mainstream of commercial life” (I. W. J. Hopkins, Jerusalem: A Study in Urban Geography, Baker Studies in Biblical Archeology [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970], 11-12).
73. Beagley, The “Sitz im Leben” of the Apocalypse, 108.
74. Safrai and Stern, The Jewish People in the First Century, 2:678-79.
75. Ibid., 691.
76. Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, 448, 458, 464.
77. Gregg, Revelation, 438.
78. This issue was discussed under the heading “Babylon’s Harlotry” in “Have the Prophecies in Revelation 17-18 about Babylon Been Fulfilled? Part 1,” Bibliotheca Sacra 169 (January–March 2012): 80-89.
79. DeMar, End Times Fiction, 226 n. 20. See also Carrington, The Meaning of Revelation, 287; Preston, Who Is This Babylon? 257; Currie, Rapture, 331; Provan, “Foul Spirits, Fornication and Finance,” 94; Davies, Babylon the Harlot City, 11-12; Ford, Revelation, 301-2; and Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, 454.
80. Beagley, The “Sitz im Leben” of the Apocalypse, 109.
81. Provan, “Foul Spirits, Fornication and Finance,” 86-89. See also Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics, 438.
82. This issue was discussed under the heading “Babylon’s Influence” earlier in this article, pages 346-53.
83. Richard Bauckham, “The Economic Critique of Rome in Revelation 18,” in Images of Empire, ed. Loveday Alexander, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991), 47-90. See also Mounce, The Book of Revelation, 333-34.
84. Aelius Aristides, Oratio 26.7; see also 26.11-13.
85. Pliny, Natural History 6.26.
86. 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. See also Clarence Larkin, The Book of Revelation (Glenside, PA: Larkin, 1919), 159; and 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), 398-99; and Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Footsteps of the Messiah, rev. ed. (Tustin, CA: Ariel, 2003), 319-20.
87. Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander 7.19.4.