(avg. read time: 10–20 mins.)
For the most part, I do not plan for now to get into the minutiae of the controversies over what various symbols in Revelation represent. One exception to that tendency is what I will be addressing today: who is the harlot/prostitute of Babylon in ch. 17? Because the woman is said to sit upon a beast with seven heads and the seven heads are said to be seven mountains or hills, which would seem to supply a rather obvious connection to Rome, some have leapt to identifying this woman with Rome or something that comes from Rome (e.g., a particularly popular interpretation since the Protestant Reformation has been to identify her with the Roman Catholic Church). I am of a considerably less popular position that the harlot of Babylon was originally associated with Jerusalem, though the symbol could be reapplied over the years thereafter.
Naturally, this view tends to be dismissed because Revelation is typically dated to 95 CE, and claims for an earlier date are more often than not treated un-seriously (as an example, here is a recent post from Michael Bird that shows such dismissiveness). To be fair, if Revelation was written then, it is less likely that John would be referring to a derelict Jerusalem in this fashion, though I do not know that it could be ruled out altogether, as it could be a retrospective aspect of the text (not unlike the vision in Rev 12). But if Revelation was written in the 60s CE, we would have all the more reason to think that the harlot is a symbol associated with Jerusalem and its powers that had been antagonistic to the followers of Christ. And so here I will first make the argument for the date of Revelation being in the 60s, and then I will look at the clues of Revelation, drawing as it does from the OT and from NT tradition, that make this identification plausible.
The Date of Revelation
I am not doing a full-blown survey of issues in dating Revelation here, though I would be interested in returning to such if my readers are interested. But we can briefly summarize the case here. The testimony of the early Christian teachers is in some cases equivocal, but on balance it tips to assigning Revelation to the time of Domitian (81–96). The almost universally cited testimony of Irenaeus (Haer. 5.30.3) has been taken to indicate that John saw his vision in the time of Domitian, but the passage is ambiguous and could be translated as referring to John as what was seen in the time of Domitian (but, again, this is a minority view). The earliest witness that might favor a date for Revelation during the time of Nero appears to be Clement of Alexandria (Quis div. 42), who refers to John coming to Ephesus from Patmos “after the tyrant’s death.” The description of the “tyrant” better fits how Nero is described by ancient sources, though this is not decisive. Many more witnesses could be called and examined more extensively, but I do not want to get into all of the intricacies at this time.
The internal evidence from Revelation, though, better fits the 60s. The issues raised about food offered to idols (2:14, 20) are clearly at home with the earliest generations of Christians, as this is something that Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians, and it also appears in Acts. But in subsequent Christian literature, this issue becomes less prominent, and mostly went unaddressed after the first century, as far as I am aware. This does not mean a text written later than the 60s in the first century would not still have treated it as a live issue, but it becomes less and less likely to be an issue in the same settings as it was in the middle of the first century.
It is common for critics to be dismissive of the suggestiveness of ch. 11. They may note that we do not know if the temple of God in 11:1 is a reference to the temple in Jerusalem, that Ezek 40–48 involved measurements of buildings that did not exist on earth yet, and that later Christian literature could speak of the cult in Jerusalem as if it was still operational after the destruction of the temple. However, the temple in 11:1 is distinguished from the heavenly temple in 11:19, not least because what is outside of it is given to the gentiles to trample (11:2), and what they are to trample is the holy city. Since unlike Ezekiel there has been no reference to a destruction of the temple in the first place, it is questionable that we can say just because the measurement from Ezekiel was done on purely envisioned structures that the reference in Revelation must be the same. The final point was one I remembered from Bird in particular, as he cited Heb 7:27 and the Epistle to Diognetus 3 as examples. The citation of Hebrews begs the question on a work that is significantly debated about whether or not it was written before the destruction of the temple in 70. As for the latter, it is true that it refers to how the Jews also sacrifice as part of a critique against religious practices of the Jews and gentiles in general in this part of the letter, but it does not explicitly treat the temple in Jerusalem as if it is still standing, nor can his argument rightly be paralleled with Revelation as if just any reference to the cultic apparatus is properly equivalent. Revelation 11 treats the temple and the city of Jerusalem as still standing. After all, this is the setting for the two witnesses to be killed and dishonored (11:8). It is also questionable why John would write about only a tenth of the city being destroyed (11:13) if he is writing this well after the destruction of Jerusalem altogether. All of these features of the text are significantly more intelligible in the 60s than they are after 70.
Finally, we must consider the references to the beast in chs. 13 and 17. The most relevant piece from ch. 13 is the number of the beast in 13:18. 666 is the number one can get from gematria by rendering Nero’s Greek name (Neron Caesar) in Hebrew characters. Interestingly, a minority report of textual witnesses attests to 616 as the number of his name, which is the equivalent to Nero Caesar (his Latin name) rendered in Hebrew characters. It is possible that 17:9–11 also indicates that Nero is intended here with the counts of the heads and the horns, as well as how they are distinguished. If the count of the seven kings begins with Julius Caesar, as Suetonius did in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars (and others did as well), then the sixth one “who is” would be Nero. If the count begins with Augustus, then the sixth one would be Galba. While I think the first counting system is more likely to be the one used here, it is still ambiguous. Attempts to avoid the suggestiveness of this by saying the seven heads are simply a symbol of Roman power cannot really explain why the heads and even the horns are so distinguished as to refer to some in the past tense.
While none of these factors are determinative in and of themselves (though ch. 11 may be the strongest point), the same could be said for arguments dating the text to ~95 or even later. There is not a great deal to go on in Revelation when it comes to determining its date, but for what we do have, I think a good case can be made that it makes more sense in the 60s than in another time. With that said, let us now turn to more specific indicators of associating Jerusalem with the harlot of Babylon.
Jerusalem and Babylon
There are undoubtably many who are skeptical of this link. The best way to address this skepticism and make my own case is to go through the text and engage with issues as they come up. Chapter 17 opens with referring to “the great evil one who sits upon many waters, with her the kings of the earth commit sexual immorality, and the ones who dwell on the earth were made drunk with the wine of her immoralities” (17:1–2). She is more specifically described as a harlot in vv. 15–16, and even as the mother of harlots in v. 5. In OT precedent, and even beyond, no group of people—whether a city or a nation—is identified as a “harlot/prostitute” or similarly as an adulterer that did not have some sort of covenantal relationship with the Lord. For all the oracles against the nations in the OT, only Tyre (Isa 23:15–18) and Nineveh (Nah 3:4) are described in such terms because the former had a covenant relationship with Israel and was involved in building the first temple while the other had at one time repented and turned to the Lord (in Jonah). Otherwise, this imagery is reserved in the OT for the people of Israel and Jerusalem (Isa 1:21; 57:3; Jer 2:20; 3; 5:7; 13:27; 23:10–14; Ezek 6:9; 16; 23; Hos 2; 4:12–19; 5:3–4; 6:10). This is also imagery that Jesus picks up in his teaching (Matt 12:39; 16:4; Mark 8:38). It is associated with idolatry, but it is more specifically associated with infidelity to God, which was expressed in idolatry by going after other gods and rejecting God’s will, God’s commands, and God’s messengers. Similarly, a few texts from Qumran apply such imagery of harlotry to Israel and Jerusalem as well (4QpNah 3–4 II, 7–10; III, 5–8; 4QapocrLam A/4Q179; cf. 4QWiles of the Wicked Woman/4Q184).
Why would such imagery be applied to Jerusalem and its leadership here? That will come into more clarity as we go through the passage, but the root of it is the rebellion against the Lord’s Christ, his Son, his Lamb, as Jesus himself warned would happen (Matt 23–24; Mark 13; Luke 21; among others noted in my series here). Thus, Jesus in Revelation speaks of those who are the synagogue of Satan, claiming to be Jews who are not (2:9; 3:9), which is a reversal of how Jewish leaders and others sought to dissociate the followers of Christ from other Jews. The non-Christian Jews could use the privileges granted by Roman authorities to be immune from participation in imperial cults and other such objectionable aspects of Roman civic life so that they would not legally (though not necessarily socially) suffer reprisal. By their persecution and dissociation of Christians from Judaism, they would have made them more susceptible to pressure to do what Jews did not have to do or suffer for their lack of participation. But instead, in line with what Jesus implies here, the earliest Christians saw and presented themselves as Jews following God’s new revelation; as the new covenant was the fulfillment of the old covenant, the movement of Jesus followers was the fulfillment of Judaism, for they proclaimed the realization (at least inaugurally) of God’s promises to the Jews and their ancestors. But in their rebellion, they have been led astray by Satan. And just like the idolatry of past generations, a key component of this rebellion is their compromising entanglements with other nations, namely Rome in this case, especially in the crucifixion of Jesus and what led to it. Thus, the presentation of Jerusalem in terms that are reminiscent of the rebellious harlotry of Israel’s past is considered appropriate.
What about the woman’s adornment with purple, scarlet, gold, precious stones, and pearls (17:4)? Most of this description is a match for some of the priestly attire as stated in the LXX of Exod 36:9–12, 15–21 (cf. Exod 25:3–7; 28:5–9, 15–20). The exception is the pearls, but this could be a symbol of the gifts she received from the nations. The golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her immoralities, fits with the significance of the harlotry imagery we have already noted. The significance of the attire suggests the powers in Jerusalem have become a perversion of what God meant them to be, which fits with how at least some Christians presented them at this time and would have also been consistent with how other Jews regarded them, such as in Qumran. Even Josephus (as we have seen elsewhere), for how entangled with the Romans he was, made note of how the high priesthood was undermined by its entanglements with Rome, not least because the Roman authorities often made decisions about replacing high priests.
John then tells us that “upon her forehead a name is written, a mystery, ‘Babylon the great,’ the mother of the harlots and abominations of the earth” (17:5). The fact that her name is written on her forehead is consistent with how the mark of the beast is borne on the forehead or right hand and the seal of God is also put on the forehead. But it is also consistent with OT imagery drawn from Jer 3:3, which refers to Israel as having the forehead of a harlot. As this is one of the major texts applying the harlot description to Israel in the OT, it is likely that this description is related to that text.
What about the fact that she is called “Babylon the great”? It is true that Rome was referred to by some Jews as “Babylon” (Sib. Or. 5.434–446; 2 Bar. 67:7) and we likely see this also in 1 Pet 5:13. Some even presume that the name “Babylon” implies that the one signified in this way had already destroyed the temple as the Babylonians did with the first temple. But if “Babylon” in 1 Pet 5:13 refers to Rome, Peter can refer to Rome in this fashion while living at a time before the temple’s destruction. (To be fair, there is dispute about Petrine authorship, which is beyond my scope to address here, but this reference in itself is not evidence against it, and even scholars who accept Petrine authorship nevertheless make this sort of justification for Rome to be referred to as Babylon in Revelation.)
Could Jerusalem be called Babylon? Within Revelation it was already referred to as “Sodom and Egypt” in 11:8, and if it could be called by the names of two paradigmatic groups of enemies and unrighteous/unjust people, that itself helps make the application of “Babylon” to Jerusalem more plausible. Beyond more general statements that will link the two in the rest of Revelation, what convinces me of this is Jesus’s Olivet Discourse. As I have argued here, here, and here, parts of Jesus’s discourse about the coming judgment on Jerusalem involve the use of texts declaring the destruction of Babylon. If Jesus could describe the rebellious Jerusalem in terms of being like Babylon, there is no reason John, his disciple, could not have done the same. In fact, it makes it more likely that John would have presented those of Jerusalem who despised Israel’s Messiah in such terms as one of the historic enemies of the people of God.
The fact that the woman gets drunk from the blood of the saints, and from the blood of the witnesses of Jesus (17:6), is, on the one hand, demonstrative of a violation of the prohibition of consuming blood, one of the primal principles of purity (Gen 9:4; Lev 7:26–27; 17:10–12; 19:26; Deut 12:16, 23; 15:23; 1 Sam 14:33–34; Ezek 33:25; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25). On the other hand, it fits with the description of Jerusalem not only elsewhere in Revelation (11:8), but also in the OT (Isa 4:4; Jer 7:6; 19:4; 22:3, 17; 26:15; Lam 4:13–14; Ezek 7:23; 9:9; 16:36; 22:2–13, 27; 23:37, 45; 24:6–9; cf. Isa 59:3, 7) and the NT (Matt 23:30, 34–35; Luke 11:50–51; cf. Matt 23:37; Luke 13:33–34). The powers of Jerusalem had continued this tendency in sending Jesus to his death, as well as in participating in the deaths of both the apostles named James and of Stephen (at least). While Rome would have its own share of Christian blood on its hands, it did not at this point have a legacy of shedding the blood of the saints more generally, namely those who came even before Christ’s incarnation, in addition to the blood of the witnesses of Jesus.
But surely the description of the seven heads as seven mountains/hills (17:9) points to Rome, right? The term here (ὄρος) could technically be translated as “hill,” and that is how most understand it here, which would therefore point to Rome, as it was known as the city on seven hills (Virgil, Aen. 6.783; Georg. 2.535; Horace, Saec. 7; Cicero, Att. 119 [6.5]). But for as much as supporters of the identification of Babylon with Rome point to this aspect of the vision, it is actually the point that first convinced me that the harlot of Babylon is something/someone other than Rome.
Even though I am willing to grant that the reference of the seven mountains probably is to Rome, we should not take for granted that it is necessarily referring to “hills,” as the term nowhere else refers to a “hill” in Revelation (6:14–16; 8:8; 14:1; 16:20; 21:10). That does not mean it cannot be used in such a sense here, but it does call into question how easily we slip into this translation. Furthermore, the eschatological image of Jerusalem being situated among seven mountains is present in 1 En. 24:2–3 and 25:3–6. If that is what is being invoked here, the harlot is further accentuated as a parody of what Jerusalem should be and what the eschatological Jerusalem will be. However, though I have seen this argument, I think it ruins the integrity of the vision for the same reason as the more popular reading, as it mixes the identities of the beast and the harlot.
As I said, I am fine with granting that the beast is to be linked with Rome, and for that reason the harlot cannot be Rome. The seven heads, linked to both kings and hills/mountains, are not the harlot herself. She is the consort of the beast, at least for the moment. In fact, the beast is said to turn against the harlot to destroy her (17:16), which quite easily fits what happened to Jerusalem at the hands of Rome. Moreover, for all that the timeline of Revelation involves shifts back and forth in chronological reference, it should be noted that the destruction of the beast is distinguished from the destruction of the harlot, not only by ch. 17, but also by the fact that the destruction happens for the beast in chs. 19 and 20 after the harlot has left the scene.
Another point commonly taken to favor the identification of the harlot with Rome is that she is identified as “the great city which has dominion over the kingdoms of the earth” (17:18). Granted, this description certainly fits politically at the time for Rome. But let us not forget that John has used the phrase “great city” elsewhere in Revelation. In 11:8, the phrase clearly refers to Jerusalem. As this use of the phrase is the first, it sets the precedent for subsequent uses in the absence of clarification to the contrary. Thus, when it appears again in 16:19, the expectation is that it is still referring to Jerusalem. The division into three is even reflective of judgment on Jerusalem in Ezek 5. The great city is even distinguished from the cities of the nations/gentiles, thereby implying that it is not among them. The fact that it is only followed up with the reference to God remembering Babylon to give her the wine cup of his anger implies by parallelism that the great city which is Jerusalem is also Babylon. All other uses of the phrase in Revelation are connected to Babylon (17:18; 18:10, 16, 18–19, 21). As such, John leaves us with the impression that “the great city” applies to only one earthly city (he never uses it in reference to the new Jerusalem, after all).
But could the description of Jerusalem as having dominion over the kingdoms of the earth actually make sense? Although the precise description is only in Revelation, it does fit how the OT speaks of Jerusalem in such exalted terms in the past or present tense (Pss 48:2; 50:2; 78:68–69; 87; 102:21–22; 132:13–18; Lam 1:1; 2:15), as well as in the eschatological sense (Isa 2:2–4; Mic 4:1–3; Zech 8; 14:16–21). It also fits other eschatological expectations like we have seen from 1 Enoch. This seems to imply that the exalted statements and possibly the eschatological expectations are being evoked ironically, as Jerusalem is a parody of what it could be, for indeed it is a parody of the new Jerusalem that is coming.
That much addresses ch. 17, the primary chapter in which the harlot of Babylon is portrayed, but what about ch. 18? The chapter appears to imply more economic prosperity and power than Jerusalem had at the time, not to mention the trade by sea. Given that we have several plausible reasons from ch. 17 to associate Babylon with Jerusalem, should ch. 18 make us modify our conclusions? I do not think so.
First, while the call for the people of God to “come out of her” (18:4) derives from similar judgment language against Babylon in Jeremiah (50:8; 51:6–7, 45), it also comports with Jesus’s instruction to flee from the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt 24:15–20 // Mark 13:14–18 // Luke 21:20–24). Second, the notion of God repaying double according to works (18:6), which is applied to Babylon here, is only ever applied to Israel in the OT (Isa 40:2; Jer 16:18; 17:18; Hos 10:10; cf. Isa 61:7). Third, while one could argue that the list of her plagues in 18:8 is generic for when cities fall, and this is true, it fits what happened to Jerusalem. Fourth, in line with what we have already observed, we are reminded that the blood of the prophets and saints was found in this city (18:24).
As for all the economic material and the references to sea trade, I am inclined to agree with Iain Provan that this is John adopting elements of stereotypical laments, particularly for places like Tyre, in the OT.1 Provan draws particular attention to Ezek 27:12–24, though he also notes how John has adapted the form of the lament to point in the direction of Jerusalem. I will not recount all the intricacies of his argument for my readers, but I think he does well to demonstrate how this passage is not an obstacle to linking Babylon to Jerusalem.
Much more can be said about the applicability of Babylon language. And I think it is fair to say that it has applicability beyond John’s immediate historical context. But it is beyond our scope to explore that here. I have rather focused on making the case that the original application of this text was to the earthly Jerusalem of John’s time, especially to the powers that ruled over and corrupted her into a parody of what she was made to be.
Iain Provan, “Foul Spirits, Fornication, and Finance: Revelation 18 from an Old Testament Perspective,” JSNT 19 (1996): 81–100.