Deciphering the Clues of Revelation
WARNING! Tugging at these threads may cause you to question everything you think you know about the Bible's final book.
This is Part 1 of a 5-part series. Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5
Mortimer Adler once noted that of all the “great books,” the Bible is the most difficult to interpret and understand.1 This is partly why there are so many different views about its contents. If this can be said of the Bible in general, it certainly applies to the book of Revelation with all its mysterious symbols and bizarre images. So how are we to make sense of it? Given that there are so many different interpretations of John’s apocalyptic vision, how are we to even know whether or not our views are close to the mark or way off track?
I’m convinced that we’ll have a better chance of unlocking the symbols of Revelation if we come to the book with 1) a “better than average” understanding of the Old Testament, 2) a solid grasp of the Gospels and New Testament Epistles, and 3) if we attempt to interpret the words (and grammar) of a given passage in the light of their original first-century context.
One way to demonstrate the value of the tools I’ve just highlighted is to show how effective they can be in illuminating the meaning of John’s text. One place I like to begin relates to the identification of a mysterious woman who appears in several chapters throughout John’s Apocalypse. I’m convinced that once we begin to understand who and what this character represents, the more John’s imagery and symbolic language will start to make sense.
So let’s jump right in, starting with Revelation 17:3-5:
I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: “Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth’s abominations.”
Most commentators agree that the beast is a symbolic depiction of the Roman Empire, since John specifically tells us that the seven heads represent “seven hills” (17:9) and “seven kings” (17:10). But who is the woman and what does she represent? Here, interpreters are divided. Those who see John’s vision as a symbolic representation of timeless truths have tended to view Babylon the Great as a personification of the fallen city of man. Others, who interpret the book as a vivid depiction of future events related exclusively to the end of the world, have argued that the woman likely represents apostate forms of Christianity. At the time of the Reformation, many Protestant interpreters equated Harlot Babylon with the Roman Papacy. In the end, there are so many different interpretations of this particular character that it would be difficult to list them all.
Writing sometime around 64 AD, the apostle Peter concluded his first epistle by saying, “She who is at Babylon…sends you greetings.” Since the city of Rome is here referred to as “Babylon,” many commentators have argued that this is a good way of understanding John’s meaning. But if this is the case, how are we to interpret Rev 18:21 which says: “Babylon, the great city shall be thrown down with violence, and will be found no more.”
As I discussed on episode 66, Isaiah and Jeremiah foretold the fall of ancient Babylon, and their words were fulfilled literally. The city became “a heap of ruins [and] haunt of jackals,” just as they predicted (cf. Is 13:19-22, Jer 51:37). The city of Rome, by contrast, was never made desolate, but is still a vibrant metropolis to this day. So, what accounts for the difference?
Every City & No City
Some have tried to resolve this by suggesting that though Babylon does refer to Rome, John was merely using the ancient city as a symbol, or an archetype. In this view, therefore, Babylon’s desolation becomes a kind of poetic description of the eventual fall, not of Rome specifically, but of all human civilization. In his commentary on Revelation, Leon Morris advocated this perspective when he wrote that Rome is “a striking embodiment of what John means by Babylon.” In reality, however, “the great city is every city and no city. It is civilized man, mankind organized apart from God. It has its embodiment in every age.”2
Though I used to hold this perspective, I’m no longer convinced that it works. For starters, since ancient Babylon was literally desolated in fulfillment of specific oracles against her (cf. Is 13:19-20, Jer 51:24-26), wouldn’t John’s original Jewish audience have been likely to interpret the words of his prophecy in a similar literal way? This is particularly relevant in light of Rev 18:4, which says: “Come out of her…lest you take part in her sins [and] share in her plagues.” These words very clearly allude to the dire warnings of Isaiah and Jeremiah before the immanent destruction of ancient Babylon (Is 48:20, Jer 50:8), which leads me again to wonder whether the first readers of Revelation would have even thought to interpret the words of his prophecy as a poetic description of the eventual fall of every city in general, and no city in particular.
Here’s another important question. If Babylon the Great does represent the city of man across all times and places, how should the call to “come out of her” be interpreted? Is it a plea for believers to leave the world behind and to live exclusively with other Christians? This is precisely how this passage was interpreted by various Anabaptist sects. In fact, if you’ve ever wondered why the Amish live in their own separate communities, it’s due in part to a misunderstanding of Rev 18:4.3
Perhaps one could see the fall of Babylon as depicting, not the desolation of the city of Rome, but the collapse of the Roman Empire. If so, this would be a different kind of failure, since John makes clear at the outset and in many places throughout his book that his prophecy relates to things that “must soon take place” (Rev 22:6; cf Rev 1:1-3, 2:16, 3:11, 11:14, 22:7, 12, 20). Since Revelation was written in the first century, and the Roman Empire didn’t officially collapse until some time in the fifth century, this doesn’t appear to be a good fit.
Harlot Babylon & Queen Jezebel
If we compare the language of Revelation to images, ideas, and motifs found in the Old Testament, we quickly discover a wealth of material that helps us to make sense of John’s vision. For example, in his book, The Climax of Prophecy, Richard Bauckham points out that when Bible readers are reminded of the story of “Jezebel’s harlotries and sorceries, and her slaughter of the prophets of the Lord, we can see that the harlot of Babylon is also in part modeled on Jezebel.” If it’s been a while since you studied this portion of the Old Testament, here are some of the similarities:
Both Jezebel and Harlot Babylon are presented as wicked and seductive queens (1 Kgs 16:29-30, 21:25; Rev 2:20, 18:7).
While there is a strong emphasis on their external beauty (2 Kgs 9:30; Rev 17:4), both queens practice “whorings and sorceries” (2 Kgs 9:22; Rev 17:1, 18:23).
Both Jezebel and Babylon have murdered saints and prophets (1 Kgs 18:4, 13; Rev 17:6, 18:24), which God promises to avenge (2 Kgs 9:7; Rev 18:24, 19:2).
Jezebel’s body was “thrown down…and trampled” (2 Kgs 9:33), just as Harlot Babylon will be “thrown down with violence” (Rev 18:21). In 2 Kgs 9:35-37, Jezebel’s body was eaten by wild dogs, and in Rev 17:16 the harlot is devoured by the beast.
In his book, The Theology of The Book of Revelation, Bauckham wisely observes that:
Revelation is saturated with verbal allusions to the Old Testament. These are not incidental but essential to the way meaning is conveyed. Without noticing some of the key allusions, little if anything of the meaning of the images will be understood. But like the literary patterning, John’s very precise and subtle use of Old Testament allusions creates a reservoir of meaning which can be progressively tapped. The Old Testament allusions frequently presuppose their Old Testament context and a range of connexions between Old Testament texts which are not made explicit but lie beneath the surface of the text of Revelation. If we wonder what the average Christian in the churches of Asia could make of this, we should remember that the strongly Jewish character of most of these churches made the Old Testament much more familiar than it is even to well educated modern Christians.4
After studying the book of Revelation closely for many years, I completely agree with Bauckham’s assessment. Every page is saturated with images, themes, and allusions to the Hebrew Scriptures, which of course means that if we’re to understand this book, we need a “better than average” grasp of the Old Testament. Though Bauckham recognizes the clear parallels between Jezebel and Harlot Babylon, he nevertheless concludes with most contemporary scholars that the latter is a symbolic representation of the city of Rome. In my opinion, however, the fact that Babylon has so many shared characteristics with Jezebel suggests that we should see her instead as a personification of Israel’s apostate leadership, particularly since Jezebel served as Israel’s queen.
There also happen to be a striking number of parallels between the characteristics of Harlot Babylon and Isaiah’s rebuke of the “daughter of Zion” as found in his opening chapter:
Is 1:7 “Your country lies desolate; your cities are burned with fire; in your very presence foreigners devour your land; it is desolate [and] overthrown (compare with Rev 17:16 in which the beast make the harlot desolate).
Is 1:10 “Hear the word of the LORD, you rulers of Sodom! (compare with Rev 11:8 in which “the great city” is “symbolically called Sodom,” and refers to the place “where their Lord was crucified.”
Is 1:13-15 Her offerings are “an abomination” because her “hands are full of blood” (compare with Rev 17:4 in which the harlot holds a “cup full of abominations” and is “drunk with the blood of the saints”).
Is 1:21-24 “‘How the faithful city has become a whore, she who was full of justice! Righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers…’ Therefore the Lord declares…‘I will avenge myself on my foes…’” (compare with Rev 19:2 in which we’re told that God “has judged the great prostitute…and has avenged on her the blood of his servants”).
Again, these parallels appear to be relatively clear and straightforward. But as in the case of Jezebel, the parallels to the opening chapter of Isaiah provide us with a “reservoir of meaning” that ends up linking Harlot Babylon with Israel’s apostate leadership. There are numerous other striking parallels and verbal allusions scattered throughout the rest of Isaiah’s prophecy, as well as to the writings of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, etc.5 There are also some fascinating parallels found in the book of Lamentations, which, once again, point us in the direction of Jerusalem’s destruction, rather than to the end of human civilization.
The Garment of the High Priest
In one section of his history, Josephus provides us with a vivid description of the high priest’s sacred garment: “[T]he priests stood clothed with fine linen, and the high priest in purple and scarlet clothing, with his mitre on his head having the golden plate on which the name of God was engraved” (Ant. 11:331). What’s fascinating is that his description of the high priest’s vestment seems to mirror not only what we find outlined for the sons of Aaron in the book of Exodus, but also what Harlot Babylon herself appears to be wearing. According to Rev 17:4-5, the woman was “arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels. And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: “Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth’s abominations.’”
The fact that the woman is “arrayed in purple and scarlet” by itself is noteworthy, but when this is combined with the fact that she has something written on her forehead provides a remarkably close parallel to Israel’s high priest. According to Ex 28:36-38, Aaron was to wear a gold plate above his forehead with the words, “Holy to the Lord” engraved upon it. The words on the harlot’s inscription, however, indicate that she is filled with abominations rather than holiness, and identifies her as the “mother of prostitutes.” In other words, she’s not merely a “whore,” as with Isaiah’s stern rebuke (Is 1:21), but Harlot Babylon appears to be the matriarch of an entire brothel.6
