I think one has to be very careful in accepting as true things that are assumed to be true merely because a "church father" assumed or thought it was or because somehow some event or "fact" found its way into "church history" w/no real historical evidence for it.
Here I'm referring to the assumption that "Babylon" of 1Pet5.13 is Rome (as well as the acceptance of the legend that he was crucified upside down in Rome). One can do AI searches, eg, Perplexity, and it will admit once pushed, that all the "evidence" is simply "tradition" -- there were no eyewitnesses to these supposed "facts" -- including Tertullian and Origen, who are simply repeating tradition / legends. Certainly the RCChurch pushed and strongly supported those traditions. But there is no evidence for them beyond he said / she said.
I write this because, though I agree completely with you that the Babylon the Great of Rev 17 is indeed Jerusalem, I do not agree with you when you declare that Babylon = Rome: '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”....'
What seems much more likely to me is that Peter is speaking prophetically, or perhaps covertly, or even in a type of coded language, of Jerusalem. OR, perhaps he was in communication with the Apostle John and they'd already agreed upon that appellation. He, James, and John were the apostles to the circumcised, while Paul, it was agreed (Gal2) had been chosen to be Jesus' apostle to the gentiles. Though it would appear that John did end up in Ephesus (Iranaeus/Justin Martyr/Polycrates of Ephesus) and was apparently a circuit preacher to the 7 churches of Rev2&3, there is much evidence in Scripture, to me anyway, that Peter stayed in Israel w/his base in Jerusalem, w/ journeys to Syria / Antioch at times.
I agree with your basic point that there are a lot of legends contained in the writings of the church fathers. I'm also not sure myself about Peter's meaning in 1Pt 5:13. My point there was merely to summarize the views of most scholars who quote it. Having said this, I do think that there is something to the "legend" that Peter went to Rome. George Edmundson's classic work on the subject ended up changing my view: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Church_in_Rome_in_the_First_Century/TGe49p7vNu4C?hl=en&gbpv=0.
While it's true that Peter was an apostle to the circumcised, it should be noted that there was a very large Jewish population in the city of Rome. Also, according to Acts 12:17, Peter was forced to leave Jerusalem because of persecution, etc., and Luke simply says "he went to another place" (likely in order to protect his whereabouts).
Hey Shane. The first place I think of with the mention of "another place" certainly wouldn't be in the belly of beast in Rome. And I haven't read Edmundson's book, but my point has more to do with Peter's "Babylon" being Jerusalem than with Peter's location(s), except of course the two are obviously related. We know that he was in Jerusalem and visited with or met with Paul there on at least three occasions -- ~36AD (three years after his conversion), 44AD at the time of his delivery to the church in Jerusalem of the collection he had gathered from the churches, and again in 49AD when they met in Jerusalem to deal w/the Judaizer problem, probably after Paul confronted him in Antioch.
Peter's going to "another place" would have been shortly after James was killed and he himself was imprisoned -- very probably 44AD. So it doesn't make much sense that he'd have fled to Rome, written his letter there (1Pet), and then returned to Jerusalem, esp. since the letter seems to have been written much closer to the Day of the Lord / Day of Vengeance, that he spoke of at Pentecost (quoting Joel2) as coming and which came ~70AD. If he was back in Jerusalem in AD 49, it would seem more likely to me that he continued to stay there than that he then took off for Rome (again?) and that his "Babylon" refers to Jerusalem, just as John's does. (Also, Jerusalem was John Mark's home.)
Can't prove that he was there in Jerusalem when he wrote 1Pet, obviously, but it makes much more sense to me that he was there and that "Babylon" was already a code word for Jerusalem perhaps shared among the leaders of the church, than that God would choose to "confuse" us w/yet another symbolic "Babylon" beyond the one that He explains to us through John.
Anyway, Shane, I do want you to know that I really enjoy and appreciate your insights and analysis. God bless you.
Because the Jewish community in Rome was so large, I don't think it would have been thought of as "the belly of the beast," but closer to a "home away from home" for all of Jesus' Jewish disciples.
Also, recall that toward the end of his letter to the Romans (written around 57 AD) Paul says that the reason he hadn't yet visited the church in that city was due to the fact that he made it his ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ had already been named, lest he "build on someone else’s foundation" (Rom 15:19-22). The implications seems to be that the church in Rome already had a solid apostolic foundation. So if not Peter, then who? Edmundson provides some fascinating historical evidence that goes well beyond citing ancient legends.
Finally, Richard Bauckham makes a strong case in his book Gospel Women that the "Junia" mentioned by Paul in Rom 16:7 is actually the Joanna mentioned in Luke's Gospel (Lk 8:3, 24:10). She too seems to have ended up in Rome. I discuss her here if you're interested: https://www.humbleskeptic.com/p/john-52-there-is-in-jerusalem
Thanks Chad. Unfortunately, there were more than three typos, but they're fixed in the online version. If you read it online (rather than in your inbox), then let me know).
Thank you Shane. I've held some form of this argument since reading the last days According To Jesus Christ by RC Sproul. Even if I didn't agree, which I do, this is a truly compelling argument. But please go back and fix the typos in the article. I counted three.
I guess the obvious question is: Since we already accept that the Old Testament prophecies were descriptions of events that occurred close to the time of the prophecy AND to events much further along, why wouldn't we look at Revelation the same way?
Yes, it's describing the fall of Jerusalem AND future events?
It sounds like a reasonable hypothesis, but it runs into difficulties when tested against the textual evidence. According to Mt 24:34, all the things Jesus taught in the Olivet Discourse were to occur in that generation, and this seems to fits with the frequent language throughout Revelation that these things "must soon take place." I'll expound on this in a future installment
I probably won't say this right, but wouldn't the scholars who lived between the first and second fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies say the same thing? Wouldn't they (actually, didn't they) say the same thing, and that's why Jesus entered a world with only a few expecting him --- and of those expecting him, nobody expecting THAT kind of incarnation?
My reading of the intertestemental period is that messianic expectation was actually quite high. The same is true with the NT period, which is why many addressed Jesus as "the Son of David," and desired to make him king (Jn 6). There were also others on the fence who wondered whether he could be the Messiah (Jn 4, 7, 10, 12), etc. If you read the DSS and the Targums, it's clear that the expectations related to the Messiah included not only his incarnation, but also his suffering and death.
Incidentally, I really don't mean to be argumentative. I've just always puzzled on this aspect of the incarnation and how unclear the details seemed to be -- even to Jesus. And the expectation that it should have been more clear to the disciples just blows my mind. Jesus had them for 3 solid years and yet not a single one of them grasped a sacrificial death, much less a resurrection.
We judge Jesus as the greatest teacher who ever lived because we are afraid not to. I get that. He's God. We respect and fear that. But honestly, do you think John MacArthur (for instance) could have 12 men for three years and not have laid out the plan in detail?
Did Jesus teach what he knew? And was what he knew limited and that's why what he taught was limited?
With regard to the twelve, they did believe Jesus was the Messiah (Mt 16:16, Jn 1:41, etc) but with many Jews of the period they tended to view his mission in political terms—he would be the new Caesar, etc (which is similar to the Aramaic Targum for Isaiah 52-53, which presents the "suffering" as something the Messiah inflicts upon his enemies). But two important texts in Luke's Gospel help to explain why Jesus' disciples weren't able to perceive Jesus' teaching about his suffering, death, and resurrection. In Lk 9:45 and 18:34 we're told that these things were hidden and concealed from them.
Then do you suppose Jesus purposely chose 12 disciples who were among the ones who either had a triumphal view of the incarnation, or no view at all? Did he on purpose not choose any according to the expectation of what he was going to be a sacrificial savior? (John said "Behold the Lamb of God"....but the disciples didn't see it that way, did they?
The fact that his suffering and death was hidden from them and later revealed is similar to how Jesus' identity was hidden and later revealed to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. It was supernatural, which caused a profound moment of realization. It also dramatically focused their attention on all the places in the OT in which the coming Messiah had been presented as one who triumphs through his suffering and death.
Great article. Interestingly, the term “carcass” or “corpse” [Strong's 6297. פָּ֫גֶר (peger)] predominantly appears in its plural form within the prophetic texts, with one notable exception where it's used in the singular. This singular form is found in the chapter following Isaiah 13:
“But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcass trodden under feet.” (Isaiah 14:19, KJV)
In context, this “carcass” refers to Babylon (see Isaiah 14:4).
It’s important to remember that prophecies are deeply rooted in Scripture, and as a prophet, Jesus draws upon the prophetic words that preceded Him. When considering the prophecy Jesus will quote next (Isaiah 13), it’s reasonable to conclude that He is referencing Isaiah 14:19 when He uses the term “carcass.” The Isaiah passage compares Babylon and its king to a corpse that will be destroyed. In this context, Jesus draws a parallel to Jerusalem and its leaders, who, like Babylon, have become spiritually dead. Metaphorically, Jerusalem has become the “city of Babylon.” Just as Babylon fell in Isaiah's day, so too will Jerusalem. Through His words, the meek and lowly Jesus foreshadows a grim fate—rotten flesh will soon be devoured.
Interesting comments—I'll definitely look into this. The Greek word for corpse that Jesus uses in Mt 24:28 is "πτῶμα" which also appears in the LXX of Is 8:14. Here's my translation of the Greek: "If you trust in him, he will become for you a sanctuary, and not as stone to stumble over when you come upon it, or a rock [that turns you into] a corpse." This is the source behind Jesus' statement at the end of the parable of wicked tenants: "And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him" (Mt 21:44).
Help me with the language - "πτῶμα"'s equivalent in Hebrew (in Is 8:14) is נֶגֶף "negeph" which gets translated as either plague or in this Isaiah passage, "stumbling," correct?
Looks like Is 14:19 in the LXX uses the term "νεκρὸς"...hmm. Some theologians believe Matthew (a very Jewish book) was originally written in Hebrew and then the manuscript was translated into Greek. Have you entertained that view?
Yes, the Hebrew equivalent of πτῶμα is negeph, which means to be struck / fatal injury, etc. The Greek word focuses more on the result. Not sure why negeph is rendered "offense." A form of it can refer to stumbling, but it primarily refers to striking / being struck (which is why it can be used figuratively -- as with being struck with a plague or disease. Concerning Matthew, many scholars rely on the words of Papias, who in my opinion didn't comment on Matthew's Gospel but his "logia" or sayings, which I take to be something like Q. I write about this here: https://www.humbleskeptic.com/p/scribes-of-the-new-covenant
I find this compelling and have not seen this link between the "Q source" and the Hebrew manuscript described in this way.
I suppose if the original noun was used by Jesus in hebrew/aramaic ("peger") and then got translated into greek "as best they could" then Isaiah 14 is still a contender. Although Isaiah 8 is also directly referencing Jerusalem.
Another point to the Rev 17 article - since there is a woman (virginal bride) in Rev 21 that is ALSO a city- a "new" Jerusalem, then the two women are being juxtaposed and the author is employing syncrisis. Therefore, the great whore of Babylon (Rev 17) we should view as the "old" Jerusalem. The "old" Jerusalem city is made up of not only apostate leaders but all those who have not "come out of" her and entered into the new Jerusalem.... Can we all agree that John's writings are masterpieces of literature?
Excellent article. Of course, whether this increasing accepted position that the harlot is in fact Jerusalem and/or the ritual sacrificial system depends entirely on when The Revelation was written. While in the 90's does seem to be the majority report, it is supported by surprisingly little evidence. If that is the date, this view it seems to me would make the book a fraud, since the destruction of Jerusalem would have occurred decades ago. The alternate position of prior to 70 AD is far preferable and fits perfectly with the book's assertions that it's prophesy's must soon take place.
I think one has to be very careful in accepting as true things that are assumed to be true merely because a "church father" assumed or thought it was or because somehow some event or "fact" found its way into "church history" w/no real historical evidence for it.
Here I'm referring to the assumption that "Babylon" of 1Pet5.13 is Rome (as well as the acceptance of the legend that he was crucified upside down in Rome). One can do AI searches, eg, Perplexity, and it will admit once pushed, that all the "evidence" is simply "tradition" -- there were no eyewitnesses to these supposed "facts" -- including Tertullian and Origen, who are simply repeating tradition / legends. Certainly the RCChurch pushed and strongly supported those traditions. But there is no evidence for them beyond he said / she said.
I write this because, though I agree completely with you that the Babylon the Great of Rev 17 is indeed Jerusalem, I do not agree with you when you declare that Babylon = Rome: '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”....'
What seems much more likely to me is that Peter is speaking prophetically, or perhaps covertly, or even in a type of coded language, of Jerusalem. OR, perhaps he was in communication with the Apostle John and they'd already agreed upon that appellation. He, James, and John were the apostles to the circumcised, while Paul, it was agreed (Gal2) had been chosen to be Jesus' apostle to the gentiles. Though it would appear that John did end up in Ephesus (Iranaeus/Justin Martyr/Polycrates of Ephesus) and was apparently a circuit preacher to the 7 churches of Rev2&3, there is much evidence in Scripture, to me anyway, that Peter stayed in Israel w/his base in Jerusalem, w/ journeys to Syria / Antioch at times.
I agree with your basic point that there are a lot of legends contained in the writings of the church fathers. I'm also not sure myself about Peter's meaning in 1Pt 5:13. My point there was merely to summarize the views of most scholars who quote it. Having said this, I do think that there is something to the "legend" that Peter went to Rome. George Edmundson's classic work on the subject ended up changing my view: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Church_in_Rome_in_the_First_Century/TGe49p7vNu4C?hl=en&gbpv=0.
While it's true that Peter was an apostle to the circumcised, it should be noted that there was a very large Jewish population in the city of Rome. Also, according to Acts 12:17, Peter was forced to leave Jerusalem because of persecution, etc., and Luke simply says "he went to another place" (likely in order to protect his whereabouts).
Hey Shane. The first place I think of with the mention of "another place" certainly wouldn't be in the belly of beast in Rome. And I haven't read Edmundson's book, but my point has more to do with Peter's "Babylon" being Jerusalem than with Peter's location(s), except of course the two are obviously related. We know that he was in Jerusalem and visited with or met with Paul there on at least three occasions -- ~36AD (three years after his conversion), 44AD at the time of his delivery to the church in Jerusalem of the collection he had gathered from the churches, and again in 49AD when they met in Jerusalem to deal w/the Judaizer problem, probably after Paul confronted him in Antioch.
Peter's going to "another place" would have been shortly after James was killed and he himself was imprisoned -- very probably 44AD. So it doesn't make much sense that he'd have fled to Rome, written his letter there (1Pet), and then returned to Jerusalem, esp. since the letter seems to have been written much closer to the Day of the Lord / Day of Vengeance, that he spoke of at Pentecost (quoting Joel2) as coming and which came ~70AD. If he was back in Jerusalem in AD 49, it would seem more likely to me that he continued to stay there than that he then took off for Rome (again?) and that his "Babylon" refers to Jerusalem, just as John's does. (Also, Jerusalem was John Mark's home.)
Can't prove that he was there in Jerusalem when he wrote 1Pet, obviously, but it makes much more sense to me that he was there and that "Babylon" was already a code word for Jerusalem perhaps shared among the leaders of the church, than that God would choose to "confuse" us w/yet another symbolic "Babylon" beyond the one that He explains to us through John.
Anyway, Shane, I do want you to know that I really enjoy and appreciate your insights and analysis. God bless you.
Because the Jewish community in Rome was so large, I don't think it would have been thought of as "the belly of the beast," but closer to a "home away from home" for all of Jesus' Jewish disciples.
Also, recall that toward the end of his letter to the Romans (written around 57 AD) Paul says that the reason he hadn't yet visited the church in that city was due to the fact that he made it his ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ had already been named, lest he "build on someone else’s foundation" (Rom 15:19-22). The implications seems to be that the church in Rome already had a solid apostolic foundation. So if not Peter, then who? Edmundson provides some fascinating historical evidence that goes well beyond citing ancient legends.
Finally, Richard Bauckham makes a strong case in his book Gospel Women that the "Junia" mentioned by Paul in Rom 16:7 is actually the Joanna mentioned in Luke's Gospel (Lk 8:3, 24:10). She too seems to have ended up in Rome. I discuss her here if you're interested: https://www.humbleskeptic.com/p/john-52-there-is-in-jerusalem
Thanks Chad. Unfortunately, there were more than three typos, but they're fixed in the online version. If you read it online (rather than in your inbox), then let me know).
Thank you Shane. I've held some form of this argument since reading the last days According To Jesus Christ by RC Sproul. Even if I didn't agree, which I do, this is a truly compelling argument. But please go back and fix the typos in the article. I counted three.
I guess the obvious question is: Since we already accept that the Old Testament prophecies were descriptions of events that occurred close to the time of the prophecy AND to events much further along, why wouldn't we look at Revelation the same way?
Yes, it's describing the fall of Jerusalem AND future events?
It sounds like a reasonable hypothesis, but it runs into difficulties when tested against the textual evidence. According to Mt 24:34, all the things Jesus taught in the Olivet Discourse were to occur in that generation, and this seems to fits with the frequent language throughout Revelation that these things "must soon take place." I'll expound on this in a future installment
I probably won't say this right, but wouldn't the scholars who lived between the first and second fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies say the same thing? Wouldn't they (actually, didn't they) say the same thing, and that's why Jesus entered a world with only a few expecting him --- and of those expecting him, nobody expecting THAT kind of incarnation?
My reading of the intertestemental period is that messianic expectation was actually quite high. The same is true with the NT period, which is why many addressed Jesus as "the Son of David," and desired to make him king (Jn 6). There were also others on the fence who wondered whether he could be the Messiah (Jn 4, 7, 10, 12), etc. If you read the DSS and the Targums, it's clear that the expectations related to the Messiah included not only his incarnation, but also his suffering and death.
Incidentally, I really don't mean to be argumentative. I've just always puzzled on this aspect of the incarnation and how unclear the details seemed to be -- even to Jesus. And the expectation that it should have been more clear to the disciples just blows my mind. Jesus had them for 3 solid years and yet not a single one of them grasped a sacrificial death, much less a resurrection.
We judge Jesus as the greatest teacher who ever lived because we are afraid not to. I get that. He's God. We respect and fear that. But honestly, do you think John MacArthur (for instance) could have 12 men for three years and not have laid out the plan in detail?
Did Jesus teach what he knew? And was what he knew limited and that's why what he taught was limited?
With regard to the twelve, they did believe Jesus was the Messiah (Mt 16:16, Jn 1:41, etc) but with many Jews of the period they tended to view his mission in political terms—he would be the new Caesar, etc (which is similar to the Aramaic Targum for Isaiah 52-53, which presents the "suffering" as something the Messiah inflicts upon his enemies). But two important texts in Luke's Gospel help to explain why Jesus' disciples weren't able to perceive Jesus' teaching about his suffering, death, and resurrection. In Lk 9:45 and 18:34 we're told that these things were hidden and concealed from them.
Then do you suppose Jesus purposely chose 12 disciples who were among the ones who either had a triumphal view of the incarnation, or no view at all? Did he on purpose not choose any according to the expectation of what he was going to be a sacrificial savior? (John said "Behold the Lamb of God"....but the disciples didn't see it that way, did they?
The fact that his suffering and death was hidden from them and later revealed is similar to how Jesus' identity was hidden and later revealed to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. It was supernatural, which caused a profound moment of realization. It also dramatically focused their attention on all the places in the OT in which the coming Messiah had been presented as one who triumphs through his suffering and death.
You've given me something to think about. Thanks.
Great article. Interestingly, the term “carcass” or “corpse” [Strong's 6297. פָּ֫גֶר (peger)] predominantly appears in its plural form within the prophetic texts, with one notable exception where it's used in the singular. This singular form is found in the chapter following Isaiah 13:
“But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcass trodden under feet.” (Isaiah 14:19, KJV)
In context, this “carcass” refers to Babylon (see Isaiah 14:4).
It’s important to remember that prophecies are deeply rooted in Scripture, and as a prophet, Jesus draws upon the prophetic words that preceded Him. When considering the prophecy Jesus will quote next (Isaiah 13), it’s reasonable to conclude that He is referencing Isaiah 14:19 when He uses the term “carcass.” The Isaiah passage compares Babylon and its king to a corpse that will be destroyed. In this context, Jesus draws a parallel to Jerusalem and its leaders, who, like Babylon, have become spiritually dead. Metaphorically, Jerusalem has become the “city of Babylon.” Just as Babylon fell in Isaiah's day, so too will Jerusalem. Through His words, the meek and lowly Jesus foreshadows a grim fate—rotten flesh will soon be devoured.
Interesting comments—I'll definitely look into this. The Greek word for corpse that Jesus uses in Mt 24:28 is "πτῶμα" which also appears in the LXX of Is 8:14. Here's my translation of the Greek: "If you trust in him, he will become for you a sanctuary, and not as stone to stumble over when you come upon it, or a rock [that turns you into] a corpse." This is the source behind Jesus' statement at the end of the parable of wicked tenants: "And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him" (Mt 21:44).
Help me with the language - "πτῶμα"'s equivalent in Hebrew (in Is 8:14) is נֶגֶף "negeph" which gets translated as either plague or in this Isaiah passage, "stumbling," correct?
Looks like Is 14:19 in the LXX uses the term "νεκρὸς"...hmm. Some theologians believe Matthew (a very Jewish book) was originally written in Hebrew and then the manuscript was translated into Greek. Have you entertained that view?
Yes, the Hebrew equivalent of πτῶμα is negeph, which means to be struck / fatal injury, etc. The Greek word focuses more on the result. Not sure why negeph is rendered "offense." A form of it can refer to stumbling, but it primarily refers to striking / being struck (which is why it can be used figuratively -- as with being struck with a plague or disease. Concerning Matthew, many scholars rely on the words of Papias, who in my opinion didn't comment on Matthew's Gospel but his "logia" or sayings, which I take to be something like Q. I write about this here: https://www.humbleskeptic.com/p/scribes-of-the-new-covenant
I find this compelling and have not seen this link between the "Q source" and the Hebrew manuscript described in this way.
I suppose if the original noun was used by Jesus in hebrew/aramaic ("peger") and then got translated into greek "as best they could" then Isaiah 14 is still a contender. Although Isaiah 8 is also directly referencing Jerusalem.
Another point to the Rev 17 article - since there is a woman (virginal bride) in Rev 21 that is ALSO a city- a "new" Jerusalem, then the two women are being juxtaposed and the author is employing syncrisis. Therefore, the great whore of Babylon (Rev 17) we should view as the "old" Jerusalem. The "old" Jerusalem city is made up of not only apostate leaders but all those who have not "come out of" her and entered into the new Jerusalem.... Can we all agree that John's writings are masterpieces of literature?
That is the argument I'll be making as I unpack things further. Yes, it's a masterpiece!
Excellent article. Of course, whether this increasing accepted position that the harlot is in fact Jerusalem and/or the ritual sacrificial system depends entirely on when The Revelation was written. While in the 90's does seem to be the majority report, it is supported by surprisingly little evidence. If that is the date, this view it seems to me would make the book a fraud, since the destruction of Jerusalem would have occurred decades ago. The alternate position of prior to 70 AD is far preferable and fits perfectly with the book's assertions that it's prophesy's must soon take place.