How shall the nations come to hate whore Babylon?

Status
Not open for further replies.
And the Babylon Peter refers to?
Matthew Henry's commentary thinks he was literally writing from Babylon, and it's not metaphorical language, which is certainly possible. The problem with it being figurative language is that it would be a bit insulting to call the Church you're writing from "Babylon," and it would strongly imply it's a false Church. Unless, of course, one were literally in Iraq, in which case it's just a matter of fact.
Matthew Henry('s posthumous assistants) say, "He closes with salutations and a solemn benediction. Observe, 1. Peter, being at Babylon in Assyria, when he wrote this epistle (whither he travelled, as the apostle of the circumcision, to visit that church, which was the chief of the dispersion), sends the salutation of that church to the other churches to whom he wrote (v. 13), telling them that God had elected or chosen the Christians at Babylon out of the world, to be his church, and to partake of eternal salvation through Christ Jesus, together with them and all other faithful Christians, ch. 1:2."
 
Hello Samuel @Samuel Jerusalem ,

You asked,
Based on what scriptures do you say that the antichrist will have a global government?
To add to what Jacob has already said, see Revelation 16:14,16:

For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty...

And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon. [emphasis added]​

and also, Rev 19:19-21 (another camera angle on "the battle"), as well as Rev 20:7,8,9:

And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. [emphasis added]​

Though if we factor Daniel 11:36-45 as part of antichrist prophecy, it appears there will be some nations that oppose him which he will seek to destroy. That is less clear than the NT prophecies, however. In the Rev 19:19,20,21 passage, it is clear that those attacking the Lord and His people comprise all non-elect on the earth.
 
Charles, as noted in post 23, Matthew Henry is one of the very few who hold that view. The consensus, ancient and current, is for Rome. Even the earlier non-Catholic Rome – i.e., the Roman antichristian gov't of John's day – was a fierce persecutor of the NT saints, and of which he wrote. In around 95 a.d. he wrote, at the Lord's command, to edify, strengthen, and warn the beleaguered followers of Jesus in the Roman empire of that time.

In Rev 13:4,5,6,7,8,9 we have a vision of, not only the Roman antichrist (and the dragon who gave him his/its power) persecuting God's people, but – per the 42 months of v. 5 – the antichrist persecuting gov'ts up through the entire age, cf. verses 7 & 8.
 
Charles, as noted in post 23, Matthew Henry is one of the very few who hold that view. The consensus, ancient and current, is for Rome. Even the earlier non-Catholic Rome – i.e., the Roman antichristian gov't of John's day – was a fierce persecutor of the NT saints, and of which he wrote. In around 95 a.d. he wrote, at the Lord's command, to edify, strengthen, and warn the beleaguered followers of Jesus in the Roman empire of that time.

In Rev 13:4,5,6,7,8,9 we have a vision of, not only the Roman antichrist (and the dragon who gave him his/its power) persecuting God's people, but – per the 42 months of v. 5 – the antichrist persecuting gov'ts up through the entire age, cf. verses 7 & 8.
I don't think the imagery of a whore suits secular Rome very well, since they weren't apostate. One cannot be an unfaithful wife without having every been a wife. Besides, the woman in Revelation is represented first as a chaste virgin, then as a whore.
The other problem is that the whore is said to have committed fornication with all the kings of the earth, Rev. 17:2, and it is said that "inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication." So if she is fornicating with "the kings of the earth," she herself is probably not a king of the earth, i.e. a civil power.
Nor can it be said that Rome was the cause of the idolatry of all the pagan nations around her. They were already idolatrous and pagan when Rome conquered them, and Rome by-and-large adopted their customs, and left them to continue in them, rather than imposing Roman religious customs upon the conquered peoples.
But it can absolutely be said of the Roman Catholic Church that it has been a cause of apostacy and spiritual fornication, and that it has committed fornication with "the kings of the earth." The RCC has always colluded extensively with civil governments for the furtherance of her cause, starting with the Holy Roman Empire and continuing to present, when the RCC has been recognized by the Chinese Communist party as the legitimate expression of Christianity in China, and the party nominates bishops.
 
Hello Samuel @Samuel Jerusalem ,

You asked,

To add to what Jacob has already said, see Revelation 16:14,16:

For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty...​
And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon. [emphasis added]​

and also, Rev 19:19-21 (another camera angle on "the battle"), as well as Rev 20:7,8,9:

And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. [emphasis added]​

Though if we factor Daniel 11:36-45 as part of antichrist prophecy, it appears there will be some nations that oppose him which he will seek to destroy. That is less clear than the NT prophecies, however. In the Rev 19:19,20,21 passage, it is clear that those attacking the Lord and His people comprise all non-elect on the earth.
Interesting... Would you be this confident without the luxury of using revelation 19 (i.e assuming you're millennial scheme)?
Charles, as noted in post 23, Matthew Henry is one of the very few who hold that view. The consensus, ancient and current, is for Rome. Even the earlier non-Catholic Rome – i.e., the Roman antichristian gov't of John's day – was a fierce persecutor of the NT saints, and of which he wrote. In around 95 a.d. he wrote, at the Lord's command, to edify, strengthen, and warn the beleaguered followers of Jesus in the Roman empire of that time.

In Rev 13:4,5,6,7,8,9 we have a vision of, not only the Roman antichrist (and the dragon who gave him his/its power) persecuting God's people, but – per the 42 months of v. 5 – the antichrist persecuting gov'ts up through the entire age, cf. verses 7 & 8.
How do you get from 42 months to 1928 years and counting? I realize some numbers could be symbolic but I am not sure why this one is.
 
Interesting... Would you be this confident without the luxury of using revelation 19 (i.e assuming you're millennial scheme)?

Old Testament passages in the minor prophets and Daniel suggest as much, though I don't see why we need to preclude other passages like Revelation 19 from our point. It's like asking us to deliberately accept a disadvantage to our position.
 
I don't see why we need to preclude other passages like Revelation 19 from our point. It's like asking us to deliberately accept a disadvantage to our position.
Well if you are going to use that with someone who is on the fence (like me), or postmillennial of the non-amil type, or who holds some non-reformed eschatology, you would need to, at minimum, defend that view of the most contested chapter in the most contested book of the bible.
 
Well if you are going to use that with someone who is on the fence (like me), or postmillennial of the non-amil type, or who holds some non-reformed eschatology, you would need to, at minimum, defend that view of the most contested chapter in the most contested book of the bible.

Several thoughts:
1) I am not using just "the most contested chapter of the bible." I used a whole sequence of chapters.
2) They would still have to show that I am wrong.
3) I can do the same thing for Zech. 12-14, but I have a feeling how that conversation is going to go.
4) Historicist and idealist readings are just as arbitrary and speculative (in fact, more so).
 
Hello Samuel,

You said, "Would you be this confident without the luxury of using revelation 19...?" Luxury? It is but the word of the Lord, perfectly congruent with all the other parts of this book, and the entire Scripture. You also said (to Jacob), Rev 19 is "the most contested chapter in the most contested book of the Bible". Most contested by other interpretive schools, possibly – but I wonder, preliminary to entering into discussions such as this, have you at all familiarized yourself with the Amil school, which, according to a recent poll here on PB, is held to by 60% of members here?

Earlier in this thread (in post 13) I attached a paper that may give you an intro to some of the Amil distinctives (including numbers used symbolically), and be helpful.

You asked a good question here: "How do you get from 42 months to 1928 years and counting? I realize some numbers could be symbolic but I am not sure why this one is."

1,260 days / 42 months / 3½ years or ‘times’ – Amillennial view (aka Realized or Present Millennialism)

Here are the places in Scripture these time periods occur:

42 months: Rev 11:2; 13:5-7 (in the ancient world a month was reckoned as having 30 days, and a year as 360; cf. Dennis Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb, p 171ff)

1,260 days: Rev 11:3; 12:6

3½ years: Rev:12:14; Daniel 7:25; 12:7 (3½ years is also written in the OT as “a time and times and the dividing [or half] of time”). Dennis Johnson says, “The mysterious ‘a time and times and half a time’ is derived from Daniel 7:25, in which it symbolizes one-half of a sabbatical-year cycle: ‘one year, two years, and half a year’ add up to 3½ years.” (Triumph, p 171)

These periods are all equal to one another, and the basic meaning is a period of intense tribulation and affliction, while the power of God’s word is simultaneously manifested.

What did the 1st century Jew (or Gentile Christian who knew the OT, and Jewish thought) think of when he heard the words, 3½ years?

The time period when Antiochus Epiphanes ravaged ancient Israel is discussed by Stuart Olyott, in his great little book, Dare to Stand Alone: Daniel Simply Explained, (p 107):

“[One angel asked] ‘How long will Antiochus Epiphanes be able to proceed with his transgressions, blasphemy and persecution?’

The answer that was given [by another angel] is recorded in verse 14 [of Dan 8]: ‘Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed’.

If we consider a year to be three hundred and sixty days – and most scholars agree that it is wise to do this when dealing with biblical numbers – we find that this figure comes to about six years and four months. This figure ties up with what transpired. From 171 to 165/4 B.C. Antiochus Epiphanes persecuted the Jews and continued with his abominations. During the last three and a half years of that period the temple was used for heathen sacrifices.” (see also E.J. Young, Daniel, p 174)

So one thing that would stand out is the 3½ years of the most intense tribulation of Antiochus’ persecution. This was ended by the Maccabean revolt, and the prophecy that the sanctuary would be cleansed was fulfilled.​

Another 3½ year event also would come to mind; William Hendriksen in his commentary on Revelation, More Than Conquerors, says,

We immediately see that the three ways of designating this period which we find in chapters 11, 12 and 13 differ but slightly. In fact, forty-two months is equal to 1,260 days; both are equal to ‘a time, times, and half a time’, if the term ‘time’ be interpreted as meaning one year, and ‘times’ as indicating two years. In all cases we are dealing with a period which is designated as three years and a half.

It is in order to ask why the term ‘three years and a half’ is used to characterize this long period. To answer this question we must remember that during the old dispensation there was a period of three years and a half which God’s people could never forget. It was a period of affliction, yet also a period during which the power of God’s Word was exhibited (1 Ki. 17; Jas. 5:17). When you compare James 5:17 with Revelation 11:6, you immediately see that the apostle was thinking of the days of Ahab and Elijah. During that period of three and a half years God’s Church was persecuted (1 Ki. 18:10,13) yet not destroyed (1 Ki. 18:4,39; 19:18). God’s Word showed its great power (1 Ki. 17:1). Elijah and others were nourished by Jehovah in a miraculous manner (1Ki. 17:4,9 ff.). Similarly, throughout the present long period of gospel activity, beginning with Christ’s first coming and extending nearly to the second coming, the Church is persecuted but not destroyed, God’s Word exerts a powerful influence, and God’s people receive spiritual nourishment.

The expression ‘a time, and times, and half a time’ occurs first in the book of Daniel 7:25; 12:7. It is the period of the antichrist. John emphasizes the fact that the spirit of the antichrist is in the world already (1 Jn. 4:3). In the Apocalypse this period of three years and a half refers to the entire gospel age. It is followed by the ‘three days and a half’ during which ‘the beast that comes up out of the abyss’—the antichristian world in its final phase—will kill the witnesses and will silence the voice of the gospel (cf. Rev 11:7 ff.). (pp 143-144)​

[cont.]
 
[cont. from above]

G.K. Beale, in his, The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Book of Revelation, on p 574 further elucidates concerning the time periods we are looking at.

We might also consider the 3½ years of Jesus’ ministry; He suffered, was persecuted, hunted, caught, tortured, and executed, all the while the power of God’s word was manifested as it had never been done before.

Keep in mind, however, the three and a half years in Daniel 7, and in Revelation, are not literal 3½ year periods, but symbolic. E.J. Young is emphatic on this point (Op cit., p 161) as regards Daniel 7, as he was refuting the Dispensationalist interpretation of Daniel which does try to make them literal..

To sum up:

* The witnessing church prophesies for 1,260 days (Rev 11:3). When it is finished its testimony “the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them” (Rev 11:7; see also Rev 20:1-3, 7-9; 13:7). Only when the appointed time of the church’s ministry / testimony to the world is finished can they be overcome. And that being overcome is in reality their triumph (even as it was Jesus’), for they declare that they “stand down” for nothing, not even a supposedly mighty state, and its threats of fines, punishments, or execution. By not fearing these things they show the impotence and puniness of wicked states in the light of God’s truth.​
* The church (“the holy city” – in Rev this only pertains to the holy people/new Jerusalem) is “trodden under foot 42 months” (Rev 11:2).​
* In Rev 12:5, after the Man child was “caught up unto God and to his throne”, the woman (the true Israel, the church) “fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days” (Rev 12:6).​
* As the dragon continued to pursue her, “to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, [away] from the face of the serpent” (Rev 12:14).​

What we have seen is the witnessing church of God in the guise of various images: the community / the holy city, the temple, the two witnesses, and the woman, all given to be both persecuted and protected for this exact same time period, the symbolic 3½ years. Note that the woman is given to abide in the wilderness in the place prepared for her by God for 1,260 days (Rev 12:6,14), starting when the Manchild (Christ) ascended to heaven – His resurrection – until He calls her to come up to Him – her resurrection – out of the very jaws of death (Rev 11:11,12).

The beauty of the Amillennial understanding is the perfect synchronicity and rich harmony of all its parts – in Scripture.
 
Last edited:
Hello Charles,

First, how would you distinguish "historic postmil" from "postmil"? Second, here are some Amil views on the identity and nature of Babylon – from a paper of mine, The Fate of Babylon, A study in determining the identity and demise of Babylon in John’s Apocalypse.
_____

I have been surprised at the plethora of entrées concerning Revelation’s Babylon linked to America on the internet, almost all of them by Dispensational prophecy buffs. This paper, however, is a Reformed look at the matter, with classic Amillennial commentators used and consulted. For example, what do these latter have to say about Babylon as depicted to us by John?

From the start, we understand – according to an Amil “modified idealist” hermeneutic – “Babylon” is a symbol, and not a literal resurgence of the ancient city-state in what is now Iraq. Revelation’s “harlot Babylon” is quite nuanced, spoken of as a woman seducing the kings of the earth and its people (Rev 17:2,15); it is also referred to as a city having dominion over the earth (Rev 17:18). It is edifying to read the various interpretations commentators give to this Babylon. They indicate both the historical and present-day significance of the cultural, economic, military, and political critiques in Revelation, and show this book of Scripture as potently subversive of oppressive political regimes.

The first excerpts below are from Richard Bauckham; in his commentary he perceives Babylon in Revelation as referring mainly to Rome; he highlights John’s scathing critique of it, and Bauckham’s insight is quite remarkable. Yet the majority of amil commentators see Babylon not only as Rome, but as well other similar cultural and political systems up through history, as the quotes below by Dennis E. Johnson, G.K. Beale, William Hendriksen, and Simon J. Kistemaker make clear. So what Bauckham says of Rome I extrapolate onto other later regimes, including such in our own time, the 2nd decade of the 21st century. Thus, when you read Bauckham’s remarks on Rome, I suggest that in your mind you apply that as well to the next – the final – manifestation of Babylon Scripture envisions.

Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation
“The Book of Revelation is one of the fiercest attacks on Rome and one of the most effective pieces of political resistance literature from the period of the early empire. Its thoroughgoing criticism of the whole system of Roman power includes an important element of economic critique. This condemnation of Rome’s economic exploitation of her empire is the most unusual aspect of the opposition to Rome in Revelation, by comparison with other Jewish and Christian apocalyptic attacks on Rome, and it has also received the least attention in modern study of the book.” p. 338​
“The Book of Revelation uses two major, complementary images of the evil power of Rome. One is the sea monster (‘the beast’), introduced in chapter 13. It represents the imperial power, the Roman Emperors as a political institution, and in particular their military might, on which the Roman Empire was founded. The other image is of the great city Babylon, first named in 14:8, and then portrayed as a woman, ‘the great harlot,’ in chapter 17. Babylon is the city of Rome (built on seven hills: 17:9) and in particular the city of Rome as a corrupting influence on the peoples of the empire. Chapter 17 brings the two images together: the harlot is enthroned on the seven heads of the beast (17:3, 9-10). In other words, Roman civilization, as a corrupting influence, rides on the back of Roman military power.” p. 343​
William Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation,​
“Babylon is the world as centre of seduction” p. 154​
“Babylon.... it becomes evident that the symbol has reference to a great industrial and commercial metropolis. Babylon, therefore, must indicate the world as a centre of industry, art, culture, etc., which by means of all these things seeks to entice and seduce the believer, that is, to turn him away from God. It symbolizes the concentration of the luxury, vice, and glamour of this world. It is the world viewed as the embodiment of ‘the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the vainglory of life’ (1 Jn. 2:16).” p. 168​
“a pleasure-mad city” p. 168​
G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text,​
“Though closely associated with the beast, the woman is not to be equated with the beast. That she rides the beast connotes her alliance with the state. The woman must represent that part of the ungodly world that works together with the state, such as the social, cultural, economic, and religious aspects of the world. In this context the work that they agree to do together is that of persecuting the saints...” p. 853​
“The followers of the beast are guilty primarily not of immorality, but of idolatry....​
“Babylon was the ungodly world power under which Israel had to live in captivity. While Israelite saints did not go along with Babylon’s religious practices, they were nevertheless tempted to compromise. When they remained loyal to their God, they underwent trial by their oppressors (see Daniel 1-6). The ungodly social, political, and economic system dominated by the Roman Empire placed believers in the same position as Israel was in under Babylon... Therefore, here in the Apocalypse Rome and all wicked world systems take on the name ‘Babylon the Great’... [emphasis added –SMR]​
“The nations’ cooperation with Babylon ensures their material security. Without this cooperation, security would be removed. Such security is a temptation too great to resist. Therefore... ‘she made to drink’ means that the nations were forced to ‘drink’, to comply with Rome’s and society’s idolatrous demands, if they wanted to maintain economic security.​
“Babylon’s promise of prosperous earthly welfare for its willing subjects is an intoxication that the majority of the world’s inhabitants also want to imbibe. Once one imbibes, the intoxicating influence removes all desire to resist Babylon’s destructive influence, blinds one to Babylon’s own ultimate insecurity and to God as the source of real security, and numbs one against any fear of a coming judgment”. pp. 741, 755-756​
Dennis E. Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb: A Commentary on Revelation,​
“...the harlot Babylon shows us Rome from the perspective of the spiritual threat of compromise through economic seduction, yet she also transcends Rome and encompasses every expression of the idolatry that worships economic prosperity and cultural achievement, whether in Nineveh, Chaldean Babylon, Tyre, Rome, or later entrepreneurial empires.” p. 243, 244 [emphasis added]​
“This woman represents fallen human culture in all the apparent glory of its achievement and the true repugnance of its arrogance.” p. 246​
“ ‘...the great city,’ all that makes the city emblematic of human culture and achievement – music, craftsmanship, food preparation, domestic life, and commerce...” p. 253, 254​
Simon J Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Book of Revelation,​
“The text reveals symbolism, evident in the two expressions prostitute and many waters. These two should be interpreted not literally but spiritually. First, the great harlot’s goal is to lead people wherever possible away from Christ; hence, she is the exact opposite of the church that seeks to lead all people everywhere to Christ.” p. 462​
“Nebuchadnezzar, boasting about the city he built, used the expression Babylon the Great (Dan. 4:30). He exhibited inordinate pride that resulted in his immediate downfall, because not he but God is sovereign over the nations (Dan. 4:32). Similarly, this same expression adopted by the great prostitute seals her own doom. The woman called Babylon, sitting on many waters, which the angel interprets as the peoples, crowds, nations, and languages (v. 15), symbolizes the population of the entire world. The name Babylon the Great is a figurative description of all the godless inhabitants in the world. In the second half of the first century, the city of Rome was a cesspool of iniquity and thus became a symbol of worldly pleasure, enticement, and lust. But as I have pointed out above, to focus attention only on Rome of apostolic times is too restrictive. The name Babylon applies to the lasting conflict between Satan’s henchmen and the people of God.​
“The woman calls herself ‘the mother of prostitutes and of the abominations of the earth.’ She is the mother superior over all those who commit spiritual prostitution by worshipping the beast. Her underlings proclaim the gospel of the Antichrist while she herself receives their adulation and praise. She is the source of all that is evil directed against God: slander, murder, immorality, corruption, vulgarity, profanity, and greed. And she originates these sins by putting her underlings to work. She is also the mother of all abominations in the world, for every sin originates with her. The disparity between this woman who personifies evil and the woman who is the church cannot be greater (12:1). The apostle Paul teaches that the church is the mother of believers (Gal. 4:26). Blessed are those who have her as mother and God as Father. Conversely, God’s enemies belong to the mother of abominations and suffer the consequences.” p. 466.​

I don’t quote Herman Hoeksema (Behold, He Cometh!) on Babylon as he veered off and said she was only the apostate church, while I agree with the rest that while the false church is included in Babylon, the harlot encompasses all of the godless world.

These interpretations, although they differ somewhat, are not at odds: they compliment one another. But to the gist of what I want to discuss:

Given that Babylon signifies the cultural, academic, legal, economic, and religious / philosophical aspects of fallen humankind, and the beast (from the sea) the antichristian political and military powers, we see in Rev 17:16 that God has put in the hearts of the ten horns (kings / kingdoms) on the beast to hate and destroy the harlot. These would be nations in coalition with a dominating power to attack this entity, Babylon. This exemplifies Jesus’ saying in Mark 3:24 and 26, “And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.... And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.” And I found myself wondering, “What would this look like? How would it / could it take place: The governments and their military going to war against the economic and cultural center or centers of the world?”

Of all the commentators two give an inkling: Beale, who draws greatly on the OT and the Jewish writings, regularly finds background for the symbols used in Revelation; he says,

“In both Nah. 3:4-5 and especially Isa. 23:15-18, Nineveh and Tyre are called harlots because they cause ruin and uncleanness among the nations by economically dominating them and influencing them by their idolatry” [emphasis added]. Op. cit., p. 885.​
“ ‘The woman’ is interpreted to be ‘the great city, which has sovereignty over the kings of the earth.’ She includes the entire evil economic system of the world throughout history. She receives power from the devil himself. Her economic-religious influence formerly even extended over the political realm (‘the kings of the earth’). But their loyalty will shift toward the beast and they will become antagonistic toward her in the end time. That the ‘woman’ has sovereignty over the world demonstrates that she must be identified more broadly than merely with unbelieving Jerusalem or the apostate church. Likewise, 18:23 reveals her universal nature by describing her as one who has ‘deceived the nations’.” Op. cit., p. 888.​

Kistemaker has an interesting take:

“Does John have in mind the destruction of Rome whereby subordinate vassals rise up against her? Hardly, for the imperial city never entirely fulfilled the words in this verse. The splendor of Rome diminished in the course of due time, and the empire came to an end in 476, but the city itself remained intact. On a broader scale, the text applies to nations pursuing economic and political goals to the detriment of others. When wealth and riches accumulate, a sudden downturn causes these nations to collapse...”​
“These kings together with the beast are determined to destroy the woman who has dominated them.” [emphases added] Op. cit., p. 478.​

So we have the thought that economic domination and exploitation by Babylon breeds resentment and a violent retribution. And we also see that the city of Rome was left intact, even though the empire was finished, and the great Chaldean city of Babylon was not destroyed either (per Isaiah 47 and Jeremiah 50 and 51), as Cyrus the Persian conquered the Babylonian Empire, taking the city of Babylon in 539 BC, yet this city was left intact as well. The utter destruction of “Babylon the great” spoken of in Revelation 17 and 18 – and in Isaiah and Jeremiah – remains to be fulfilled.

If we look back in history as shown to us in the Scripture, we find that the two previous manifestations of “Babylonian” empire – Chaldean Babylon and Rome – both had their headquarters in specific city-states, while their empires themselves were far-flung.

The purpose of this study is to seek to discern more particularly what this Babylon is, and what its destruction at the hands of the beast and kings could be. Granted, there is a lot of flakiness and surmising regarding these points in much current thinking, but this is an attempt to understand in a responsible and Scripturally sound exegesis. It does, however, venture into a realm rife with error, unfounded speculation, conspiracy theories, and just plain wackiness (although some of these aforementioned rightly intuit close to the truth, if what I understand approaches the truth). The reader may discern and assess for him or herself, and as regards my conclusions may take them or leave them. In said conclusions I assert Revelation’s prophetic visions when rightly understood are meant for our warning, comfort, and assurance in present and yet-to-come difficult times.
 
Hello Klaas,

One writer (Richard Neuhaus) on the topic of Babylon, touching on Peter's connection to it, says this:

The overwhelming consensus of the early Church fathers and of contemporary scholars is that in 1 Peter “Babylon” is a symbol for Rome, and that Peter is writing from Rome.​
The connection between Peter and Rome is virtually unchallenged until the 16th century Reformation when Calvin and Erasmus tried to dissociate the apostle Peter from the papacy in Rome. Moreover, the Roman connection is supported by 1 Peter’s specific reference to Mark who is strongly linked with Rome (see Col. 4:10, 2 Tim. 4:11), and by 1 Clement, a letter written in Rome about 96 a.d.​
I don’t think there are that many Church fathers of the first 2 or 3 centuries commenting about the place of origin of 1 Peter. Ultimately what it comes down to is the association of Peter with Rome (his martyrdom) and the conviction that the book of Revelation speaks of the city of Rome. On those two assumptions the argument is based. As those two assumtions are ancient, the argument is reasonable. Yet the apostles traveled and Peter just like Paul didn’t have any reason to use a cryptic designation when writing about the church in Rome. So I don’t see a reason why it has to be Rome.

As the identification with Rome was made based on the book of Revelation it is a circular reasoning to try identificating the Babylon of Revelation by using 1 Peter.
 
I don’t think there are that many Church fathers of the first 2 or 3 centuries commenting about the place of origin of 1 Peter. Ultimately what it comes down to is the association of Peter with Rome (his martyrdom) and the conviction that the book of Revelation speaks of the city of Rome. On those two assumptions the argument is based. As those two assumtions are ancient, the argument is reasonable. Yet the apostles traveled and Peter just like Paul didn’t have any reason to use a cryptic designation when writing about the church in Rome. So I don’t see a reason why it has to be Rome.

As the identification with Rome was made based on the book of Revelation it is a circular reasoning to try identificating the Babylon of Revelation by using 1 Peter.
Hello Klaas,

You said, "I don’t think there are that many Church fathers of the first 2 or 3 centuries commenting about the place of origin of 1 Peter....Peter just like Paul didn’t have any reason to use a cryptic designation when writing about the church in Rome." See the list of them below!

Christians were outlaws – especially their leaders – in the eyes of the Roman government. It makes perfect sense Peter would use a "cryptic designation" for Rome so as not to draw attention to the church or himself being there.

You are trying to defend a minuscule minority view, contrary to facts.

"Circular reasoning"? 1 Peter 5:13 stands on its own, with its own attestation by the early Christians (see below). As for the designation of "Babylon" having reference to Rome, and to the later manifestation of end-time Babylon in Revelation is clear.

The identification of Babylon as Rome – both Imperial Rome of the 1st and 2nd centuries, and the symbolic designation – as historic massive persecutors of God's people is commonly accepted in this day.

Ignatius of Antioch
“Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict” (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]).

[Cont.]
 
Last edited:
[cont.]

Dionysius of Corinth
“You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time” (Letter to Pope Soter [A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).

Irenaeus
“Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church” (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3, 3, 2).

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (ibid., 3, 3, 3).

Gaius
“It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’” (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5).

Clement of Alexandria
“The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed” (Sketches [A.D. 200], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6, 14:1).

Tertullian
“But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 36 [A.D. 200]).

“Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it with their blood” (Against Marcion 4, 5:1 [A.D. 210]).

The Little Labyrinth
“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

The Poem Against the Marcionites
“In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor, Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement follows him, well-known to apostolic men. After him Evaristus ruled the flock without crime. Alexander, sixth in succession, commends the fold to Sixtus” (Poem Against the Marcionites 276–284 [A.D. 267]).

Eusebius of Caesarea
“[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years” (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).

Peter of Alexandria
“Peter, the first chosen of the apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome” (Penance, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).

Lactantius
“When Nero was already reigning, Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked . . . he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero . . . Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew” (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5 [A.D. 318]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
“[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . .While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven” (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).

Optatus
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Epiphanius of Salamis
“At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).
 
A key to understanding Babylon in Revelation is that she is depicted both in her world-system opposition to God and His people, and as a headquarters nation / city-state – as was the case in her Chaldean and Roman predecessors as well.
 
Hello Klaas,

You said, "I don’t think there are that many Church fathers of the first 2 or 3 centuries commenting about the place of origin of 1 Peter....Peter just like Paul didn’t have any reason to use a cryptic designation when writing about the church in Rome." See the list of them below!

Christians were outlaws – especially their leaders – in the eyes of the Roman government. It makes perfect sense Peter would use a "cryptic designation" for Rome so as not to draw attention to the church or himself being there.

You are trying to defend a minuscule minority view, contrary to facts.

"Circular reasoning"? 1 Peter 5:13 stands on its own, with its own attestation by the early Christians (see below). As for the designation of "Babylon" having reference to Rome, and to the later manifestation of end-time Babylon in Revelation is clear.

The identification of Babylon as Rome – both Imperial Rome of the 1st and 2nd centuries, and the symbolic designation – as historic massive persecutors of God's people is commonly accepted in this day.

Ignatius of Antioch
“Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict” (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]).

[Cont.]
Not a single one in the list attributes any letter to Peter, let alone argue that the letter wasn’t written in Babylon but in Rome. I haven’t yet seen anything to back up the claim of the Roman Catholic Richard Neuhaus, that the overwhelming consensus of the early Church fathers is that Peter wrote his letter in Rome and that he uses symbolic language by calling Rome Babylon.

But even if there were a few references to be found, that would most likely not create a more solid case. The book of Revelation is after all written according to the majority at the end of the first century. A late reference would therefore more likely be influenced by John’s vision and not be an independent witness.

As far as I know there is no evidence of any Christian prior to the existence of the book of Revelation that has made the identification of Babylon as Rome. The identification of Babylon in 1 Peter 5 as Rome is therefore based on two facts (which I don't contest):
  • Peter is associated with the city of Rome
  • Rome is identified with the Babylon of Revelation
 
I share Steve's approach. We do run the risk of speculation, but skeptics run the risk of inaction. In any case, we are moving towards a cashless society and global government. Whether or not that fulfills prophecy, it is an open attack on liberty.

Jacob, I quoted the entirety of your comments in post #24 for context. Would you mind explaining the part that I bolded?
 
Klaas,

Earlier you said, "The first letter of Peter is a different book than Revelation and is not apocalyptic literature. There is no reason for Babylon to be taken figuratively in 1 Peter 5:13 and mean Rome."

First, there is not one shred – not one speck – of evidence anywhere that Peter was ever even in Iraq (aside from the two commentators' unsubstantiated opinions). And, second, it makes perfect sense that Peter would use a figure to speak of the city bent on persecuting (and killing) Christians in the city he was writing from! Beale gives a good reason why Peter would use a figure understood by many:

"Babylon was the ungodly world power under which Israel had to live in captivity. While Israelite saints did not go along with Babylon’s religious practices, they were nevertheless tempted to compromise. When they remained loyal to their God, they underwent trial by their oppressors (see Daniel 1-6). The ungodly social, political, and economic system dominated by the Roman Empire placed believers in the same position as Israel was in under Babylon."​

Third, Peter's letter, if intercepted by the persecuting Roman authorities, would not be alerted that Peter and a thriving church was in their city: "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son" (1 Pet 5:13).

Fourth, there is no record whatsoever, to my knowledge, of there even being a church in Iraq in A.D. 60.

Fifth, it is not apocalyptic language Peter used in this instance, but simply a figure that would be understood by those with knowledge of the history of God's people.

Thus, by far these reasons are more acceptable than the unreasonable view you allege.
 
Going back to the beginning of this topic of who / what is Babylon:
I don't think the Rome depicted in Revelation 17 is ancient Rome, but the Roman Catholic Church.

I'm afraid, Klaas, you have done Charles' "historic postmil" position a disservice by demonstrating such a poor basis for 1 Peter 5:13's "Babylon" being Iraq. Peter's reference simply shows that the terminology of "Babylon" for Rome way predated the existence of the Roman Catholic church.
 
First, there is not one shred – not one speck – of evidence anywhere that Peter was ever even in Iraq (aside from the two commentators' unsubstantiated opinions).
Does there need to be specific evidence? Peter, as Apostle, travelled to dozens of cities, and, unlike Paul, we don't have an extensive record of his travels, and Babylon had a huge Jewish community from before Christ up until the 1950's.
And, second, it makes perfect sense that Peter would use a figure to speak of the city bent on persecuting (and killing) Christians in the city he was writing from!
It actually doesn't make sense, since the Apostles always mention the city the are writing from explicitly, if they mention it at all, and all mentions of Rome in the epistles are literal. How many mentions are made of Rome in Paul's epistles, or the Acts of the Apostles? There was no danger in calling Rome Rome, only in criticizing it.
Third, Peter's letter, if intercepted by the persecuting Roman authorities, would not be alerted that Peter and a thriving church was in their city: "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son" (1 Pet 5:13).
The Romans already knew "there was a thriving Church in their city." Paul, in his Epistle, mentions that "the household of caesar salutes you," (Phil. 4:22). It seems that Caesar's own wife was a Christian, so he certainly knew what they were and that they were there. And many Roman authors make mention of the Christians and their practices during that era. Christianity wasn't some secret, underground sect, as it is often depicted. The Apostles preached in the open. Paul testified before Caesar himself.
Fourth, there is no record whatsoever, to my knowledge, of there even being a church in Iraq in A.D. 60.
On the contrary, those converted in Acts 2 were "Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia..." And tradition says that the Apostle Thomas traveled to Iraq before 60 a.d.
Fifth, it is not apocalyptic language Peter used in this instance, but simply a figure that would be understood by those with knowledge of the history of God's people.
Would it really be understood that well though? Was the situation with Rome really that similar to the deportation to Babylon, where the Church lost the temple, its cultus, and its promised homeland? "Babylon" and "Babylonian Captivity" have a meaning beyond just "evil empire." As Martin Luther correctly explained it, the situation that developed in the middle ages was a Babylonian captivity of the Church, and Rome was a spiritual Babylon, because believers were not able to worship in the churches according to the word of God, and they had all manner of idolatry forced on them.
I'm afraid, Klaas, you have done Charles' "historic postmil" position a disservice by demonstrating such a poor basis for 1 Peter 5:13's "Babylon" being Iraq. Peter's reference simply shows that the terminology of "Babylon" for Rome way predated the existence of the Roman Catholic church.
I have not at any point in this conversation staked my position on 1 Peter, but on the indications present in Rev. 17. If Peter is calling Rome Babylon, which I don't think he is, I do not believe that undermines my position. In fact, even if it were proven that all of Revelation is about secular Rome, that wouldn't prove that historicism is wrong, because early historicist commentators like Bullinger and Junius take that position.
 
I have no dog in this hunt either way, but there is a lot of evidence for Mesopotamian Christianity in the first century. It was far easier to get to Iraq than it was to Rome. Philip Jenkins documents this in The Forgotten History of Christianity.
 
Hello gentlemen,

1) No need for evidence that Peter was ever in Iraq? Okay – suppose all you want.
2) Paul and Peter were murdered there by the state. He didn't criticize Rome in the 1st epistle? True, but in his time it was common for Christians to refuse to call Caesar Lord, or make sacrifices to him / them, on pain of death. They were enemies of the state – and of the world (it was alleged)!
3) Right, the Faith wasn't an underground sect, but widely known – and awfully persecuted. Shades of Babylon of old!
4) Okay, I mean specifically in Babylon (in Iraq) in the time of the apostles – this is not about Mesopotamia generally.
5) I repeat myself in quoting Beale:

"Babylon was the ungodly world power under which Israel had to live in captivity. While Israelite saints did not go along with Babylon’s religious practices, they were nevertheless tempted to compromise. When they remained loyal to their God, they underwent trial by their oppressors (see Daniel 1-6). The ungodly social, political, and economic system dominated by the Roman Empire placed [Christian] believers in the same position as Israel was in under Babylon."​

This is a tempest in a teapot! May those reading these exchanges decide for themselves if the historicist suppositions presented outweigh in value the strong majority consensus, and reasoning – ancient and modern – that Peter was referring to persecuting Rome when in 1 Pet 5:13 he spoke of that "Babylon" he was writing from.

Charles in correct in saying that even if Peter was writing from Rome and calling it Babylon it wouldn't affect his historicist view. My point is that the term Babylon was used in the New Testament epistles to refer to the Roman Empire of Peter's day, and that in John's Apocalypse it is likewise used to refer – in his immediate time – to persecuting Rome, and not prophetically and exclusively to the Roman Catholic church – although the RCC was indeed a manifestation of the Babylonian spirit – and prophetically by John to a final end times Babylonian monstrosity that shall pollute the world with her filth and seductive luxury, and sic the military beast she rides on those who will not cater to her wickedness, that is, until the Most High destroys her forever.

I do well understand that many generations of godly Christians have thought that the final time of the end was upon them – going back centuries – yet it remains that some day the end shall be upon a generation. I happen to think that our days may be drawing close to that final time. It is certainly not "newspaper exegesis" (for the newspapers do not see it, but are part of it!) to discern the shadow, not of Mordor, but of an evil multifaceted demonic assault upon the very basics of our humanity – a great cloud far more terrifying than Tolkien's, for its dystopian scheme has our children and grandchildren in its sights.....not a shadow, but the visage of the prince of evil can be discerned in its madness, cruelty, and hatred of humanity.

One writer interestingly said,
“There has always been disagreement on what the real is. It is why we have philosophers and artists. But we have never had a situation in which a creed of unreality may become the default narrative for an entire society.”

Thankfully we have the Almighty Christ our Warrior-King who shall destroy the demon prince and his tools by the brightness of His coming (2 Thess 2:7,8; Rev 20:9,10). It is not far off as the postmil schema says, or twisted and distorted per the premil fantasy – pardon my bluntness, for war is at hand – but closer than we think.

We think our lives will go on pretty much as usual, the electric grid will stay up, money will still buy stuff – there will still be stuff to buy – and that judgment will not fall upon us for the insanity and wickedness of the world, and of the war-mongering U.S. in particular. I would have preferred to stay in the states, join some sound Reformed church, and end my days quietly lending a helping hand to godly leaders, even when trouble hit, but the Lord did not so arrange His providence for me.

My counsel is, have a local community of kindred godly souls that are accessible when the grid goes down, things get scarce, and dangerous, and communication systems fail. Our Saviour will see us through. He loves His flock. He is in His flock, God with us.

A gift: UNCOVERING PROPHETIC DETAILS IN REVELATION
 
Last edited:
Going back to the beginning of this topic of who / what is Babylon:


I'm afraid, Klaas, you have done Charles' "historic postmil" position a disservice by demonstrating such a poor basis for 1 Peter 5:13's "Babylon" being Iraq. Peter's reference simply shows that the terminology of "Babylon" for Rome way predated the existence of the Roman Catholic church.
Hi Steve, I never set out to prove that Peter has been in Babylon (Mesopotamia), although I believe that to be most probable; He is after all the apostle to the circumcision and the two major Jewish centers outside Palestine were Babylon and Alexandria. Just as you claim Peters' reference as prove for Rome, Peters reference can in the same manner be used as prove for Peter visiting Mesopotamia - after all a single reference (Gal. 1:17) is also prove for Paul visiting Arabia. If however I were to follow Beale’s line of thought I might as well consider Jerusalem for Peters' Babylon. Just as there is more than one Goliath in the Bible, there wouldn't be anything wrong with two Babylons in the New Testament.

My point of contention was and stil is: As the identification of Babylon in 1 Peter with Rome was made based on the book of Revelation (both by you and other writers) it is a circular reasoning to try identificating the Babylon of Revelation by using 1 Peter.
 
Last edited:
Sorry Klaas, Babylon is a code name for Peter – as explained above – completely independent of and apart from John's use of the term in Revelation, and before Revelation was written, yet with the old Chaldean oppressor in mind. Peter's use is more limited, referring only to Rome of his day, whereas John's use has expanded meaning and significance.

Thus, the identification of Babylon in 1 Peter with Rome was not made based on the book of Revelation, and not circular reasoning at all. We have ample evidence of Peter being in Rome, and none of his being in Babylon in Iraq. Any other supposition is conjecture.
 
Last edited:
Interesting read. I have been way off base I guess. I have always thought John was using the title of Babylon in a derisive way to describe how wicked Israel / Jerusalem had become in his day; they did after all murder God Incarnate. Babylon is a name of mystery because it symbolizes what Jerusalem had become. She is the Great Whore who rode the beast of Rome. She is the city that kills the saints and the prophets. She had become the synagogue of Satan. So, I’d say Peter was writing from “Babylon” but he was in and referencing Jerusalem. Mark was with him as well and was most likely in Jerusalem. Similarly, John refers to Jerusalem as Sodom and Egypt ( Rev.11:8). Referring to Israel or her leaders explicitly or implied by her enemies names for her covenant breaking idolatry and wickedness is nothing new. Even Herod was like Pharaoh and Israel like Egypt forcing an exodus of the true Israel to Egypt!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top