Is Rome Babylon?
|
One of the concepts that has caused a considerable amount of polemics to thrive between Catholics and Protestants through the years has been the idea of Rome as Babylon. Both Futurist and Historicist Protestants have used the Rome as Babylon motif to paint the Catholic Church as the Harlot and the Pope as the Antichrist. Yet while the NT usage of the word Babylon for Rome does represent the NT mindset, certainly very few from Emergent would still cast Catholicism or Rome as Babylon etc. Below I would like to make a suggestion and see what some of you might think about it. Of course, I am a futurist or a classic premillenialist - or as I will likely be viewed by the Emergent Church - a starchy extremist fundamentalist traditionalist. But I’m good with that. The wicked always persecute the righteous. Kidding Kidding. Okay; of course Babylon was once literally Babylon. But by the later portion of the 1st Century, Babylon was viewed as a code word of sorts for Rome. This is evidenced in 1st Peter (“She who is in Babylon greets you…”) as well as the Sibylline Oracles, the Assumption of Moses and a few other apocryphal works. As such, we see that the idea of Babylon (in many ways harkening even further back beyond Babylon to Babel, as the first city where a unified front of mankind attempted to establish the first great anti-Yahweh religion) was symbolically applied to the capital city of which ever Beast Empire (any number of Middle Eastern anti-Yahweh, anti-Semitic, and eventually anti-Christ and anti-Christian empires) was reigning at the time. In other words, Babylon migrates. Once in Babylon (Nebuchadrezzar’s Gold head, Daniel’s Lion beast), eventually in Rome (Neb’s iron legs, Daniel’s fourth ferocious beast), Babylon follows the beast of the day. But then in Revelation 17:9-11 we are offered the idea that possibley Rome was not the last Beast: 9”This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. 11The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction. While many in their polemics have attempted to use the “seven hills” to try to suggest that this is a reference to Rome, we know that hills (or mountains) refer to Empires as seen from Neb’s statue dream. (The Mountain that struck the feet and shattered the statue grew into a great Kingdom that filled the earth). Likewise we are well aware that seven hills would not have blasphemous names written on them, as is described elsewhere in Rev, yet Beast Empires certainly can. So this strange passage is instead referring to not six, nor even seven but eight Beast Empires. The eighth is said to actually only be a resurrection so to speak of one of the seven. Clearly at the time of John writing Revelation, Rome “was”. Rome was thus Babylon. But today Rome is the headquarters of a great Christian entity. Old Rome has fallen. Thus after Rome another two Beast empires were to emerge. Now obviously, my guess is that most preterists will disagree with this interpretation, but then how is this passage then to be viewed? Particulalry if we are consistant with the motif of Mountains as empires etc. And if not empires, then what historical events does this reference? |
Comments
Revelation 17:9-11
I see what you’re saying, Joel. I’ll take a swipe at interpreting this passage. What have I got to lose?
“Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits, and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while. The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction.” (NASB95)
PRETERIST VIEWS
The general pre-AD 70 preterist interpretation is that John is speaking of the emperors: hence, there were five emperors before the present one and the next will rule for a short time. Jay Adams sees two possible schemas:
1. Five Fallen: Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero
2. One Is: Vespasian
3. the other that has not yet come: Titus
4. the eighth: Domitian
Or
1. Five Fallen: Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligular, Claudius
2. One Is: Nero
3. the other that has not yet come: Galba, who reigned for only 7 months
4. the eighth: those who follow Galba, the Vespasian emperors
That is not to say that preterism is in agreement, since J. Stuart Russell maintains that the woman is actually Jerusalem and that the seven hills are the seven Roman procurators/governors who were “kings” of Judea.
HISTORICIST VIEWS
Most historicists agree that the 7 hills are in fact symbolic of Rome. They see the five who have fallen as precursors to the present Imperium, the sixth as the present rule of Princeps (emperors), the seventh as a short period in which Rome did not dominate the world (although some, like Newton, proposed that the 7th was the Holy Roman Empires), and the eighth as the Roman Catholic church.
SPIRITUALIST VIEWS
Hendricksen, along with other spiritualists, maintain that the beast is Nero, symbolic of Rome and the Spirit of Antichrist. The five that have fallen are the five world kingdoms that have passed: Babylon, Assyria, New Babylon (Chaldean), Medo-Persia, and Greco-Macedonia. Hendricksen then sees the 7th as a collective of all the anti-Christian governments from the fall of Rome until the time of antichrist.
Hendricksen’s position is not shared by all spiritualist interpreters. Some hold that they are individual persecutors of the church and that the eighth will be a concentration of all of the previous seven (hence, “one of the seven”).
FUTURIST VIEWS
Most futurists see the seven mountains as a clear reference to Rome, but this is not a universal interpretation by any means. Both Seiss in The Apocalypse and Walvoord in The Revelation of Jesus Christ held that mountains ARE NOT hills, and thus the seven mountains are not equatable to either Rome or Jerusalem. They are then symbolic of kingdoms.
Thus, Seiss maintains:
by these seven great powers then, filling up the whole interval of this world’s history, this Harlot is said to be carried. On these she rides, according to the vision. It is not upon one alone, nor upon any particular number of them, but upon all of them, the whole seven-headed Beast, that she sits.
The seven great powers, according to Seiss, are: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, and a future kingdom - probably the Beast’s kingdom. He then maintains that the eighth the Beast himself “of the seven.”
Other futurists stick to the historicist interpretation, maintaining that the seven are the forms of Roman government. As such, the Beast represents an eighth form of government over Rome.
MY VIEW
Because I try to view the Revelation in the Roman context, I find it impossible to accept any of these views wholesale. John may very well have been aware of the book of Daniel in his composition, but the additions of Egypt or the Early Babylonian kingdoms to the others just doesn’t seem to fit his place in history.
I also find that most interpreters are naive when it comes to the actual history of the world, seeking out information that fits their scheme for interpretation rather than viewing the true history of what was going on.
I tend to side with the historicists view that the “one is” is the regime that ruled Rome at the time John is composing this. But I have a hard time synchronizing what I know about the imperium with any kind of historicist, futurist or preterist scheme. They all fall short of the truth historically.
If I had to decide today, I would probably side with Joel that the mountains are earthly kingdoms but I would maintain that they are not world- kingdoms, but rather those which dominated and subjugated Israel specifically. Israel’s history would seem to fit the paradigm.
1. Five Fallen: Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Macedonian, Seleucid/Antiochane
2. One is: Rome
3. One which will come: Perhaps the modern “state” of Israel?
4. The eighth: The Beast
I have to admit, while I suggest this, it is totally off-the-cuff. I throw it out there as an idea that we can discuss and develop.
Revelation 17:9-11
Nicely summarised. You’d have to add to your post-Rome subjugation of Israel though:
Persia - Arabs - Turks - Mamluks - Ottoman Turks - British - modern state of Israel
which would push the eightfold schema off the spectrum.
Is Rome Babylon?
You may be right; the main problem I have with most kinds of ‘futurism’ with regard to Revelation is the violence it tends to do to recent history, and the traditional role of biblical prophecy as calling people to righteousness, and especially, in the land of Israel, to the covenant.
I’m referring of course to some of the injustices on which the modern state of Israel was founded - and are perpetuated to this day in a two-tier racial society. If you doubt this, ask a Palestinian. Consider Deir Yassin and 385 Palestinian villages ethnically cleansed after 1948, and the continuation of this policy to the present day.
Christians can be fixated on Islam as the source of all evil in the middle east, but the power of Islam today rests as much on its role as a rallying point for political and social injustice as its spiritual character. In Israel, the attitudes which are the foundation for injustice cast the Palestinian as a second or third rate citizen, and millions rot in refugee camps.
The rise of militant Islam in the middle east has as much to do with a reaction to western interference as the operation of abstract spiritual forces. Our awareness of history should include the carve-up of the middle east after World War 1, the population displacements which occurred at the founding of Israel, and the imperialism which replaced Mossadeq with the Shah in Iran through western oil interests in the 1950’s. Problems in Iraq today need to be viewed in this context. The frequently overlooked victims of this history are the ancient Christian communities of the middle east, many now in danger of extinction.
Maybe if some of the justice issues were addressed , the spiritual issues would exert less of a malign influence. Where is the prophetic voice calling for justice, and vindication for the oppressed? I don’t hear it in popular expositions of Revelation and ‘end-time prophecy’.
Revelation 17:9-10
Here is roughly how I would interpret this passage, though I accept that because of the nature of the text and our relation to it it is very difficult to be confident about the details.
I see no reason to find in John’s vision of the woman seated on the beast an application or reference beyond the fall of Rome: the vision naturally culminates in the judgment of the harlot. The stone which becomes a mountain in Daniel 2 is not a worldy empire. It is, surely, the kingdom of God which will eventually overcome the empires that threaten Israel (Dan. 2:45).
The woman - the harlot, Babylon the great - is clearly the city of Rome: she is the ‘great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth’ (17:18). In this vision it is pre-eminently a place of immorality, corruption, excess, and violent hostility towards the saints (17:4-6; 18:1-24).
The woman is closely associated with the beast on which she sits, which I think represents, as in Daniel’s vision, the oppressive and destructive force of (Roman) imperialism. It is important to keep this distinction between Rome as a city and Rome as empire in mind.
The seven heads of the beast are the seven hills on which the city of Rome is situated (the evidence for this is so widespread in ancient literature that it is virtually indisputable): the point is that the city prospers on the back of its far-reaching imperial might. The heads also represent, probably symbolically, the emperors which have gone before and which, within the purview of this prophecy, are yet to come. Presumably, though, ‘one is’ refers to the particular emperor who currently is in power at the time of writing (for this combined symbolic-historical interpretation see D. Aune, Revelation 17-22, 948-949).
The ten horns (the number comes from Daniel) represent a peripheral force (client kings?) that will eventually turn against Rome and have limited authority (for one hour only: 17:12; cf. 18:10, 17, 19) to be the instruments of judgment on the city.
To avoid this thread forking in two rather different directions I’ve responded to Joel’s comments on Islam in a separate post.
The beast
The beast that ‘goes to destruction’ appears to equate both with Roman imperialism generally and with one of the ‘kings’ of Rome in particular. Whether the symbolism here can be fully deciphered, I don’t know - it is certainly convoluted. Quite possibly there is an allusion to the myth of Nero redivivus - or to Domitian as Nero redivivus, a view shared by Juvenal, Martial, Pliny. The widespread superstition that Nero would come back at the head of a Parthian army to fight against Rome is remarkably congruent with this vision and obviously parallels and parodies the belief in Christ’s parousia to deliver and vindicate his followers.
The actual destruction of the beast is depicted in Revelation 19:20 - it is thrown into the lake of fire along with the false prophet. The city of Rome has come under judgment (Rev. 18); now the beast - the demonic power that sustained the city and occasionally erupted as sheer aggression against the people of God (Nero, Domitian) - also comes under judgment (as also in Daniel 7). The reign of God and of his Christ is established in the place of the reign of Satan and the beast, in the midst of his enemies (19:6, 15; cf. Ps. 2:9; Dan. 7:26-27), through faithfulness and truth - the faithfulness of those prepared to suffer and the truth of the word of God spoken in defiance of the claims of Roman imperialism (cf. 19:11). This victory over Roman imperialism precedes the (first) resurrection (and vindication) of the martyrs who refused to worship the beast (20:4).
So I would argue that the entire narrative about the beast from the sea (chapters 13-19) has to do with the victory of Christ over Caesar, of the persecuted church over Roman imperialism and the threat of death. The martyrs are raised and reign with Christ for a symbolic period of a thousand years. At the end of this time the Satanic power that inspired Rome, which has not been able to challenge Christ’s lordship over his people during this period, will once again gather the nations of the earth against the camp of the saints and the beloved city. But the armies are quickly destroyed and satan is captured and thrown into the lake of fire (20:7-10). I see no way of determining in any more specific fashion what sort of conflict this will be or when it will happen.
Revelation 17:9-11
I’ve already made a pitch for avoiding becoming too engrossed in seeing in Revelation codes that are waiting to be cracked. This approach can blind us to the echoes and resonances in the language - which provide richer layers of meaning than the code-cracking approach.
From the point of view of historical context we are in the Rome and Roman Empire of the 1st century in Revelation 17; but if the author had wanted us to remain purely historically contextualised, he could have made things much simpler, less metaphorical - less apocalyptic, in fact.
What were the consequences of choosing apocalyptic as the style of Revelation?
Apocalyptic assists the purposes of the strictly historical literary context of Revelation by dramatising the historical events it describes so that they have universal significance. At the same time as creating universal significance, the events described have the capacity to leap out of their 1st century context, and have become encouragements for believers of all times, especially those going through persecution.
In Revelation 17:9-11, we are alerted to meaning through more than literal, historical correspondences. We need “a mind with wisdom” v.9! “Seven” is a number associated with the completion of a series - God’s creative ‘week’, for instance. Seven will be the completed series of kings: for the 1st century believers, oppressive Roman rulers. The numerology suggests the series is nearing its completion - they can take encouragement from that.
The numerology now suggests a blasphemous parallel with the true king of kings, Jesus: “Who was, and is, and is to come” - Rev.1:8, etc. The beast, the empire/king, is described in echoes of this language in 10 & 11; but it is a parody of the positive affirmation of Christ. “Have fallen” parodies “was”; “now is not” parodies “is”; “has not yet come” and “going to his destruction” parody “is to come”. We (and the 1st century Christians) have an altogether more powerful and complete king in Jesus, who will destroy all rival pretenders.
There is also a blasphemous parody of the resurrection in the numerology. The blasphemous beast is “an eighth king” - eight being the number of the resurrection, Jesus’s resurrection in particular (the 7 of creation + 1, introducing the ‘new creation’).
It’s possible to place all of this in the 1st century. The specifics of the time-scale and time sequence are perhaps less important than the description of the blasphemous claims of the kings in question and the failure of those claims alongside the only one who can truly make the claims - Jesus himself. I doubt if the literature envisaged a time-lapse of 2000 years before a single “true” fulfilment of the prophecy came about. I would say the same about Revelation 20 and the 1000 years. It’s all in the 1st century.
However, the nature of apocalypse is such that it allows for meanings to resonate beyond the immediate context, and to apply to blasphemous tyranny in all ages: the persecuting (Roman) church and its leaders; Napoleon; Hitler; Nazism; Communism; Islam where it has become tyrannous and persecuting. So I don’t personally see a specifically Roman or Islamic personality arising at “the end of time” to “fulfil” Revelation 17:9-11, or Revelation 19:19-21 for that matter. I don’t think it is helpful to read Revelation this way. All such interpretations throughout history have been “true”; Revelation has the capacity for fulfilment in all of them.
In my previous comment, I suggested that there are additional reasons for not looking for a “true fulfilment” in this way; we may be blinded to key issues of justice and peace by such a search. I truly think the church has, on the whole, failed to see things clearly in the middle east because of its commitment to flawed eschatology.
But to hedge my bets, I’ll keep an open mind, just in case.
Peter, I agree with a lot
Peter, I agree with a lot of this. I think there is still a question, however, over whether the apocalyptic language of Revelation intrinsically invites re-application beyond the context of the conflict between Christ and Caesar. The fact that from our much later perspective we are capable of reading the imagery typologically (with reference to subsequent conflicts) does not necessarily mean that the author of Revelation expected his words to be re-interpreted in this way.
It also seems to me that the thousand year period, culminating in final justice and the renewal of creation, effectively precludes a repetition of the crisis. Satan is constrained and no longer able to challenge the lordship of Christ. This is potentially a really important point: to suggest that the typology of the beast might be repeated would mean that the sovereignty of Christ described in Revelation 19 is each time brought into question. The church may face similar persecutions at a later stage, but the reign of God does not need to be re-established each time.
Wouldn’t it be better to say, then, that John wrote about the situation of the church in the early centuries, but that we may borrow his imagery - and in a sense deliberately misuse it - to give expression to the hope of the church facing persecution and oppression in later periods? In this way we don’t attempt to make Revelation speak authoritatively about situations that lie beyond its prophetic horizon. Rather as a Spirit-filled people we exercise our own prophetic authority to affirm hope through the language of scripture - just as the Bible itself reuses the exodus motif to describe subsequent liberations.
Ghosties, goulies and long-legged beasties
I’m not always sure what I do believe about Revelation, except that all of the interpretive schemes (including your own) have something to offer, yet none of them provides, for me, an exclusively convincing explanation. I find this to be especially so when we get to chapter 20, and I wouldn’t be phased at all if someone discovered that it was a non-canonical interpolation, a spoof by some prescient joker who wanted to wreak eschatological mayhem. Can you imagine how many red faces there would be all over the globe if that were found to be the case, and the acreage of bookshelves that would be cleared as people consigned their eschatology collections to the rubbish bin?
What I’m convinced of though is that most of Revelation has a primary application for 1st century believers, and also that most of it speaks to the church throughout the ages - and it is not a misuse for it to be used this way. I think this is how the apocalyptic style works; but I also think there are significant misuses of such an application.
Your point that the beast and false prophet being thrown into the lake of fire as a 1st century occurrence (I think this is what you are saying) precludes their reappearance at a later stage (as per most of the interpretive schemes) is a good one. I’m not sure what I think of that just yet, but I’ve always felt that the core passages of Revelation dealing with the beast are to do with the Roman empire specifically as past events. I’m less sure, in view of subsequent history, that the inhuman paganism which the beast represented no longer troubles us. There is too much evidence that this continues to be the case. There could well be other beasts, just like the beast with 7 heads of history and Romans 17. And ghosties and goulies.
Having said that, I’m not totally sure about Revelation 17:9-11. The beast that makes a ‘resurrection’ appearance could be an end of time beast, but it could equally be the surprising recovery of the Roman empire after, say, the anarchy following the death of Nero - when many thought Rome was finished. Surprisingly, Rome quickly recovered, and persecution of the church was resumed with gusto. And Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed.
The eighth king of Revelation 17:9-11 also finds surprising echoes in the peculiar ability of tyrants and their tyrannical systems to survive in power - even through assassination attempts, or when you would have thought they were finished. Five years ago, people said things in Zimbabwe couldn’t get worse/continue beyond Christmas - yet they did, and Robert Mugabe survives - despite some evidence of behind the scenes attempts to dump him. Just one example among many. (I have a personal interest in Zimbabwe).
Most of Revelation 18 & 19, for me, finds no parallel in the historical experience of Rome, and while it celebrates the end of that city and empire, it gets taken up into a celebration of the end of all worldly empire and systems. It does not seem to me a misuse to see the former as being a type of the latter. Probably in the 1st century, the expectation was that the demise of the former would be the latter.
I think part of the issue then would become to me, in what sense has the power that the beast represents been overcome? Not that the power has been eliminated from the face of the earth, but a new kingdom has come into being which proves itself more powerful than it - constantly challenging its pretensions to rule the earth, and constantly overcoming, despite appearances to the contrary.
This may be failing fully to respond to your point, but it was dashed off in rather a hurry.
The references appear to be
The references appear to be exclusively from Greek and Roman writings. Do you have examples in Christian literature where the seven hills are interpreted differently? The woman is described as ‘the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth’. It’s hard to imagine John’s readers saying, ‘Well, he’s obviously not talking about Rome….’
Multiple levels of interpretation
My problem with the argument that these texts in Revelation require a further level of fulfilment beyond the immediate historical context of the conflict with Rome is twofold.
First, I see nothing in the texts that necessitates this hermeneutical assumption. I do not hear John saying: This can be applied to Rome for now but actually there will be a bigger fulfilment of this prophecy in the remote future. What makes this multiple fulfilment argument a matter of exegesis and not mere speculation? I’m not persuaded by Peter’s argument that apocalyptic literature by its very nature invites multiple levels of interpretation in this way.
Secondly, it seems to me that in narrative terms the significance of the thousand year period is precisely that there will not be a repetition of the sort of challenge to Christ’s sovereignty that was represented by Roman imperialism. I made the point before (you appear not to have noticed it) that what John describes here is a unique (and therefore unrepeatable) victory over Caesar. This does not mean that the church cannot reuse the typology of the beast to describe later conflicts (cf. your allusion to Andrew of Caesarea), but I’m not sure that we can legitimately claim that this was part of the original meaning of Revelation.
I also questioned this before: where in Daniel do hills or mountains symbolize the kingdoms of the world (and not the kingdom of God)? You have in Isaiah and Micah the idea that the mountain of the Lord will be higher than the other hills, but this is a very different prophetic motif.
With regard to your comments about Victorinus: I don’t have a serious problem with a post AD 70 date for Revelation. I would rather think that the visions of judgment on Jerusalem are genuinely forward-looking rather than retrospective. I made the point earlier that Domitian was seen by some Roman authors as Nero redivivus.
I've Got To Go with Andrew on this one...
Andrew has a definite point here.
Me? No....
Joel has a good point too…
Notice my exhaustion and slight (ever so slight) sarcasm…
Seriously guys, I don’t think anyone is gaining any ground here, but its great to see a balanced dialogue on eschatology.
Islam and Revelation 17
Sometime Joel you might get round to responding to my points instead of convulsive reactions. Your response didn’t connect with anything I said (neither have previous responses). I was picking up your point about Islam providing an interpretive key to Revelation 17, and making a criticism about futurist interpretations of this and other passages in Revelation generally - and the violence they can do to genuine historical interpretation. I’d have thought, given your interest and evident knowledge of the subject, that you could do better than this.
Interpretive convulsions
Joel - I was wanting to suggest that apocalyptic broad-brush strokes in applying Revelation to contemporary middle east politics can seriously hinder our ability to bring the necessary historical and social perspectives if there is to be any peace based on justice for places like Palestine and Israel.
The western evangelical Christian community has encouraged a view of events through the lenses of very poor populist biblical eschatology. The eschatological school which has done most damage in this respect is futurism, which is why I questioned your positioning of Islam as a ‘beast’ which supersedes Rome in the eschatological imagery of Revelation. Islam is not monolithic, as you well know, and takes a different character according to where and by whom it is practised. In the middle east today, one of its attributes is to provide a ‘glue’ of identity to people who feel they have been treated unjustly, and whose grievances have a longer and more accurate memory than many Christians or western politicians.
I personally feel that the significance of the beast with seven heads in Revelation is not that it was intended to provide a code that could be cracked for counting off Roman emperors, or identifying any particular world systems of domination in the distant future. It’s an image which lends itself to a variety of interpretations. Primarily, to the church of the time, it brought hope by showing God knew precisely what was happening to them, that he was in control, and that their sufferings would not continue indefinitely.
The image can also work for subsequent contexts and times including our own - but there need to be some controls over how we attach associations and meanings to it. One such control would be a better understanding of the geo-political history of the middle east, and the dynamics of its demography. Seen from this light, the noises emanating from Iran can be better understood and responded to, politically. In the Palestinian authority, when I saw how Hamas was serving the people in greatest need with health and social care, free from the corruption which was tarnishing Fatah, I could understand why they were elected to power so convincingly.
If we brush-stroke our perception of the middle east and the world too broadly, and I think your proposal about Islam and ‘the beast’ encourages this, anything like a ‘prophetic voice’ from the Christian community is seriously compromised and distorted. I argue this has been and continues to be the case with popular ‘futurism’, especially as it rolls out in an alliance of the evangelical community and right-wing groups in some quarters of contemporary politics.
Incidentally, I’ve noticed that when interpretations of Revelation are given, the identity of the villains always seems to go to cultures/nations/personalities other than our own. Do you think this might have a bearing on the discussion?
Gotcha
Joel - thanks for your response. My main response to you is that I don’t believe the bible teaches what you say it teaches about Israel and the “last days” - and I’m not an emergent person, but a conservative evangelical! Your quotation of Ishmael is a case in point - I don’t think it would go down well with a Palestinian Christian who had been ethnically cleansed from a village and lands his family had been peacefully tending for generations.
I’m impressed with the writings and work of Rev Abuna Elias Chacour, who experienced this with his family at the hand of Israelis when he was only eight years old. He has remained in Israel, and totally without bitterness is involved in educational work where Palestinians and Jews are educated together. But the story of his life is heart-rending.
Incidentally, on the Jewish people, I believe we owed and continue to owe a debt to them for being the people through whom the gospel came - and that the gospel is still “for the Jew first, then the gentile”. I’m less convinced that the foundation of the modern state of Israel tells us about God’s purposes for the world in the way that contemporary evangelicals tend to understand it. I rather think it tells us the opposite of prophecy, from a biblical understanding of what prophecy is all about, than a fulfilment of prophetic purposes.
But I wouldn’t want to be provocative.
Ezekiel 38-39 Finally
I think we have gotten tied up in some kind of semantic argument that has distracted us from the intended purpose of the posts. Too many of us are trying to read current events (either 1st century or present day) into a text that was intentionally cryptic.
Here’s the deal. I view the Revelation as the completion of OT prophecy. As such, it MUST deal with the establishment of something bigger than the 1st century. As Joel has pointed out by his constant reference to Ezekiel 38-39, to interpret the Apocalypse in a narrow preterist light is to totally ignore the fact that it makes blatant reference to events prophecies centuries before which have not come to pass.
Consider the events of Ezekiel 38-39.
1. God will draw an invading armies composed of many nations, marked as the descendants of the sons of Noah (Japheth - Magog, Meschah, Tubal, Gomer, Togarmah; Ham - Cush, Put; Shem - Persia)
2.
The invading army will attack all over the world and bring them into domination (Sheba and Dedan in Africa, Tarshish in Asia Minor)
3. Gog will lead an invading army into Israel, arousing YHWH’s anger
4. As Gog’s armies descend on Israel from the north, they will be destroyed through a divine intervention.
5. They will strike each other with their swords, and they will be weakened and die.
6. The people of Israel will use their weapons for firewood and the burial place of the army will choke up a valley - being renamed Hamon Gog (the hords of Gog).
7. It will take 7 months to bury the dead.
The entire reason for this invasion is a demonstration that although Israel went into exile, they are still YHWH’s chosen people. This is explained at the end of chapter 39:
“I will display my glory among the nations, and all the nations will see the punishment I inflict and the hand I lay upon them. From that day forward the house of Israel will know that I am the Lord their God. And the nations will know that the people of Israel went into exile for their sin, because they were unfaithful to me. So I hid my face from them and handed them over to their enemies, and they all fell by the sword. I dealt with them according to their uncleanness and their offenses, and I hid my face from them.
“Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will now bring Jacob back from captivityj and will have compassion on all the people of Israel, and I will be zealous for my holy name. They will forget their shame and all the unfaithfulness they showed toward me when they lived in safety in their land with no one to make them afraid. When I have brought them back from the nations and have gathered them from the countries of their enemies, I will show myself holy through them in the sight of many nations. Then they will know that I am the Lord their God, for though I sent them into exile among the nations, I will gather them to their own land, not leaving any behind. I will no longer hide my face from them, for I will pour out my Spirit on the house of Israel, declares the Sovereign Lord.” (Ezekiel 39:21-29, NIV)
I think I am safe in saying that nothing like this has occurred in history, pre-Roman or post-Roman. Therefore, I would have to say that the great battle of Revelation 20, which is clearly marked as the same event, has not yet occurred.
I know that I am probably reading this too literally for some of the participants in this discussion, but be that as it may, it seems pretty straightforward to me.
Whatever happened to Revelation 17:9-11?
Whatever happened to Revelation 17:9-11? Maybe there should be a separate thread for each of the contributors so that we can disentangle some of this!
Just a couple of brief comments in passing:
The Gog-Magog war - futurism gone wild!
Preterism and Revelation - it’s probably unhelpful in this discussion to describe any of the positions on the thread as ‘preterist’
Revelation applicable or inapplicable to generations beyond the immediate 1st century? Even if the events it describes are set mostly in the 1st century (my own understanding), Revelation still speaks to subsequent generations - because how the church faced and overcame opposition and persecution then is no different from how she faces and overcomes persection now - even if you take Andrew’s unique understanding of the significance of Jerusalem/Rome’s downfall. The principles still apply.
Judgement of Babylon/Rome - Revelation 18/19. Problem: the church and the world of that time never saw a judgement of Rome which was an event - so even allowing for apocalyptic hyperbole, the event described here never happened in relation to Rome. Rome declined and continued - arguably to this day. Prophecy does have to have some relation to events taking place in the world! This event is still to come - but with plenty of foreshadowings in national/social and economic crises along the way. One day, the economic, social and political systems which characterise the world will meet their demise; Revelation suggests that it will be a highly audio/visual occurrence.
So...
You would class yourself as a spiritualist when it comes to interpreting the Apocalypse?
Re: I don't know what to call
I have been reading that some Preterists believe the Babylon of Revelation symbolizes Jerusalem, not Rome. They point out the priestly decorations she wears. Have any of you heard of this argument? What do you think?
enarchay
Could enarchay’s contributions be described as “enarchay in the UK”? (That’s an obscure 1970’s joke, if you were wondering - first single of the sex pistols - 1976).
Re: enarchay
Hey, that was cold! Yet, funny!
Yeah, I know I do not have much to offer. I’m trying to soak things in until I develop enough of an opinion of my own to add my own thoughts. Unlike most of you, I have no training in theology, and have only been studying the Scriptures for about two years now.
Rome is bigger than Rome
There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind that the Roman empire was what John had in mind when he penned the Revelation. The book is chocked full of allusions to Roman culture. In fact, if you do not understand Rome, you will not understand the Revelation. That is why I think many commentators blow it so badly when they try to read the Revelation.
Just a few examples for you. The most striking condemnations of Rome in the Revelation are the allusions to the synagogue, depths, and seat of Satan (chapters 2-3). The connection is most clear in the letter to the church of Pergamum, which is called “the throne of Satan.” Pergamum was the imperial Roman capital of the province and thus, the central “throne” of the region.
In chapter 4, John sees the following:
There has been no shortage of varied opinions on this appearance of God but to me, there is a straightforward explanation plucked from Roman practice. When a conquering general returned to Rome for his triumph, his face and hands were painted red and he was clothed in the purple of the imperator. At the end of his triumpal procession, he would ascend the steps to the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus and sit enthroned, surrounded by the radiance of his spoils.
The parallel here should be obvious. The jasper is an opaque reddish jewel which reflects light rather than refracts it. Likewise, the sardinos is a deep, purplish red which is also opaque. As John sees the Ancient of Days, he sees a Roman conqueror…something greater than a Roman conqueror in fact. The proto-conqueror if you will, of which Rome is a lesser copy.
There are more parallels, but these two should suffice to indicate that Rome is definitely looming large on John’s horizon as he composes the Apocalypse. The problem I have with most futurist (and I am a futurist) is that they want to reject the preterist and spiritualist interpretations out of hand, and they miss that the Revelation addressed an immediate need, not some mystical future need.
That being said, I want to address Joel’s statements concerning the Beast kingdom. Many of the commentators I have read of all persuasions miss the great truth of Nebuchadnezzar’s and Daniel’s visions. These kingdoms are unique, but they are not separate. Each blends into the other, each builds on the other. The Beast kingdom (the futurist antichrist) is in fact, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome and something more. Rome absorbed the kingdom of the Greeks, which absorbed the kingdom of the Persians which absorbed the kingdom of the Babylonians. The individual kingdoms did not disappear but rather melded and contorted into something at the core of the next.
Rome is not dead. It continues to live in our world today. The Roman Republic is the foundation of the government of the USA; the Latin language is the core of most of the Western languages spoken in the world. When the Beast emerges, he will be both Rome and something bigger than Rome. He will be both Rome and Babylon, but also something other than either.
I know of at least one unpublished commentator who has put forward the theory that he will emerge from the Eastern part of the Roman Empire so that he can combine all of the former kingdoms in his person and rule. He even goes so far as to say that he will be of Jewish and Muslim blood by adopt Christianity as his religion, thus uniting the world’s monotheistic religions into one as he declares himself to be the Coming Anointed One of all.
But that is neither here nor there. I haven’t dug into his theories enough to really argue it with any clarity. I simply mention him in passing.
In brief then, I think all of us can agree that the demons (speaking figuratively) that John faced were both Rome and bigger than Rome. Thus, the Revelation faces a Rome that is bigger than Rome. I think it is just wishful thinking on the part of some protestants to target Rome specifically and bend the entirety of the Revelation to the opposition of Catholicism. I think that requires as much twisting and turning as the historicist position, which forces historical parallels for the convenience of the system.
Does Rome still exist today? Yes. Is it the Roman Catholic Church? I won’t pretend to say that I don’t believe that some of old Rome still exists there, but the Church and Empire are not equitable. That is all so much sensationalism that the likes of Luther used to whip their congregants into political fury over.
Don’t get me wrong. I think Luther was right to oppose the excesses and heresies of the Church that he loved. To his dying day, he pledged loyalty to the Church although he felt that Catholicism had long since abandoned its truth. But is the Pope the Great Satan? I don’t think so. To be honest, the current pope is a man of frightening power and possessed of a capacity for things we should rightly fear, but he is not the Antichrist.