BABYLON AS ROME

The interpretation of Babylon as Rome draws support from external and internal evidence.

(1) The most ancient tradition that survives from the early Church, that of St. Irenaeus, appears to say that John received the visions of Revelation near the end of the reign of Domitian (ca. A.D. 96). If this is accepted, the harlot city must be imperial Rome, though a few have suggested that John could be looking back on the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. See introduction to Revelation: Date.

(2) Rome is several times called "Babylon" in Jewish apocalyptic texts that date back to the early second century (e.g., 4 Ezra 3, 1; 2 Baruch 2, 1). The logic behind this description is precisely the fact that Rome, like Babylon of old, conquered and destroyed the city of Jerusalem. Peter also appears to use Babylon as a code name for the city of Rome (1 Pet 5:13). Conversely, no contemporary text outside the NT uses the name Babylon for Jerusalem.

(3) The harlot city of Babylon is seated on seven hills— a traditional description of the imperial city of Rome. One rabbinic tradition makes this same assertion about Jerusalem, but it dates to a time well after the NT period (See note on Rev 17:9).

(4) The harlot city is drunk with the blood of Christian martyrs and saints (Rev 17:6). This, too, is an apt description of Rome, for at least two emperors unleashed a bloody persecution against the Church in the first century, Nero and Domitian.

(5) Babylon is said to exercise dominion over many kings (Rev 17:18; 18:3) and peoples (17:15) and is pictured at the center of a vast trading empire that enriched many nations (18:11-19). Interpreted literally, these statements are easily applicable to the Roman Empire of the first century. It is less clear how these verses could be said to describe Jerusalem.

(6) Occasionally, the book describes the harlot city with the help of OT passages that refer to God's judgment on pagan cities of the past, such as Tyre (see notes on Rev 17:1-6; 18:9-19) and ancient Babylon itself (see notes on Rev 14:8; 17:1; 18:1-24). Again, Rome quite easily fits the profile of a pagan metropolis that is destined to face the wrath of the Almighty.

BABYLON AS JERUSALEM

The interpretation of Babylon as Jerusalem draws its support mainly from the internal evidence of the text, though some external evidence gives support to it as well (see introduction to Revelation: Date).

(1) The Book of Revelation tells us that the "great city" is the city where Jesus was crucified (11:8). Since this is the first use of the expression in the book, there is reason to think that Jerusalem is the identification intended throughout. At least, John gives no indication that more than one "great city" is in view as the book unfolds.

(2) The streets of the harlot city run red, not only with the blood of Christian martyrs and saints (17:6), but also with the blood of "prophets" (18:24). This, too, sounds like a reference to Jerusalem, a city that spilled the blood of the earliest martyrs (11:7-8; Acts 7:58; 12:2; 26:10) and had a long history of murdering God's prophets (Mt 23:37; Lk 13:33), including the Messiah (Mt 27:25-26).

(3) Babylon is portrayed as a "harlot" who seduces other nations (17:1-6). This could apply to a city such as Rome, for the OT uses this imagery for Gentile cities such as Tyre and Nineveh. However, the image of the harlot city is extensively developed in the OT with reference to Jerusalem. She was the city accused by the Prophets of prostituting herself to the nations by various transgressions of the covenant (see notes on Rev 17:1-6; 17:16; 18:22-23). Not only so, but the harlot's attire in Revelation recalls prophetic texts that describe sinful Jerusalem bedecked in the same way (See note on Rev 17:4).

(4) A voice from heaven summons the faithful to flee from sinful Babylon (18:4), lest they be destroyed by the "plagues" and "fire" that are soon to ravage the city (18:8). It is difficult to see how this fits the historical situation in Rome, a city that has maintained an uninterrupted Christian presence extending to the present day. However, in the case of Jerusalem, we know that Jesus urged his disciples to flee the city before its demise (Lk 21:20-21), and history confirms that they heeded his warning in time (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3, 5).

(5) The harlot city is destined for a fiery destruction (17:16; 18:8, 18). This is one of many things in the book expected to take place "soon" (1:1, 3; 22:6, 7, 10, 12). Now, supposing it possible that John wrote the book in the late 60s, the burning of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 would fit the prophetic time frame perfectly (Mt 22:7). However, Rome was not set ablaze and trampled into obscurity until the city was overrun by Visigoth barbarians in A.D. 410, more than three hundred years after the warning in Revelation was issued. Confirmation that John expects an imminent fulfillment of his oracles comes near the end of the book. In contrast to the prophet Daniel, who was told to seal up the account of his visions because their fulfillment awaited a time in the distant future (Dan 12:4), John is told not to seal up his visions because the time of fulfillment is near (22:10). Historically, then, it is easier to account for the urgent tone of the book if the city in question is Jerusalem rather than Rome.

(6) The destruction of the harlot city (chaps. 17-18) is followed by visions of a heavenly city (chaps. 21-22). Clearly these cities are portrayed as the spiritual antithesis of one another, as several contrasting parallels show (See note on Rev 21:2). The most natural interpretation views the new Jerusalem, which comes down from heaven, as the successor to the old Jerusalem, which was built on earth, as elsewhere in the NT (Gal 4:24-27). Of course, it is not impossible that the new Jerusalem could be taken as the counterimage of Rome, as many scholars hold, but the fit is less perfect. For this involves a split antithesis that defines the heavenly city over against two different earthly cities, i.e., the celestial Jerusalem is "new" in relation to the old Jerusalem, but "heavenly" in relation to the earthly city of Rome. Strictly speaking, then, either interpretation is possible. But the new Jerusalem in heaven is more readily envisioned as the counterpart and successor to the old Jerusalem on earth.

WHAT IS curious about the above is the strength of both interpretations. Some details seem to fit a description of Rome, while others are more clearly applicable to Jerusalem. This being the case, one might argue that these opposing views are not mutually exclusive but that both are legitimate in different ways. In our judgment, a stronger case can be made for Jerusalem as the city whose demise is apocalyptically presented in Revelation. But this does not mean that other readings of the book are thereby ruled out. Jerusalem was the first city to fit the description in Revelation, but it is by no means the only city. What was true of apostate Jerusa-lem—that it became a center of godlessness, violence, and corruption to the point of defying God and shedding the blood of his servants—holds true of countless cities down through the ages. History is clear that Rome stood next in line to carry on the legacy of Jerusalem by its ruthless persecution of Christianity, so Revelation's warnings of divine judgment apply to it as well. Indeed, Rome's bloodguilt is very much part of the message of the book, even in its literal sense (e.g., 13:7). So even if John intended us to think first and foremost of Jerusalem, God's judgment serves as a warning to any and every city thereafter that would choose to turn against the Lord and his disciples. Thus, when one surveys the history of interpretation, it is not surprising to learn that Rome and, indeed, many other earthly powers, political as well as religious, have been identified as the Babylon of Revelation. We must not restrict the meaning of apocalyptic events to exclude later historical applications. Revelation's theological message is a timeless message, and its pastoral application is one of perennial relevance. It was as meaningful in the first century as in every century since, even to the end of time. Back to Revelation 18:1.«

||    The Orthodox Faith (Dogma)    ||    Family and Youth    ||    Sermons    ||    Bible Study    ||    Devotional    ||    Spirituals    ||    Fasts & Feasts    ||    Coptics    ||    Religious Education    ||    Monasticism    ||    Seasons    ||    Missiology    ||    Ethics    ||    Ecumenical Relations    ||    Church Music    ||    Pentecost    ||    Miscellaneous    ||    Saints    ||    Church History    ||    Pope Shenouda    ||    Patrology    ||    Canon Law    ||    Lent    ||    Pastoral Theology    ||    Father Matta    ||    Bibles    ||    Iconography    ||    Liturgics    ||    Orthodox Biblical topics     ||    Orthodox articles    ||    St Chrysostom    ||   

||    Pope Shenouda    ||    Father Matta    ||    Bishop Mattaous    ||    Fr. Tadros Malaty    ||    Bishop Moussa    ||    Bishop Alexander    ||    Habib Gerguis    ||    Bishop Angealos    ||    Metropolitan Bishoy    ||

||    Prayer of the First Hour    ||    Third Hour    ||    Sixth Hour    ||    Ninth Hour    ||    Vespers (Eleventh Hour)    ||    Compline (Twelfth Hour)    ||    The First Watch of the midnight prayers    ||    The Second Watch of the midnight prayers    ||    The Third Watch of the midnight prayers    ||    The Prayer of the Veil    ||    Various Prayers from the Agbia    ||    Synaxarium