Editor’s Note: Students of the Bible have often found themselves confounded by how to interpret sections of the book of Revelation. One of the most puzzling questions is how to interpret the Great Harlot. In this article, biblical scholar Larry Pechawer (PhD, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion) explores the options for interpreting the Harlot’s identity and makes the case for the interpretation he believes the evidence points to. End-times frameworks are not “essentials” of the faith, and however you have traditionally approached Revelation, you will find this article helpful.
Revelation 17 serves as a stumbling block for many interpreters. Extremely important for the overall understanding of the book, however, are the identifications of (1) the “great prostitute” named “Babylon the Great” who rides the beast and of (2) the beast with seven heads and ten horns that carries the harlot. It might make sense to some to “skip over the hard parts” here and focus upon the more basic ideas of the book. However, just as the saying “The devil’s in the details” can ring true, the details can also serve the divine, helping Christ’s church better grasp His message to them.
The Call for Wisdom
Distinguishing important, informative details from eye-catching apocalyptic “window dressing” is no easy matter and clues along the way are welcome. Granted, it may be easy to lose the “big picture” when wrestling with striking, sometimes shocking, symbols and images. What is the important thing here, the key message?
I would suggest that extensive details accompanied by a call for “wisdom” should not be glossed over (Revelation 17:9; 13:18). These highlighted details are in fact part of the “big picture.” They may very well be a key component.
Revelation 12 begins the narration of the conflict between the dragon and the Lamb while Revelation 13 shows the dragon summoning the beast from the sea to carry on his warfare with Christ and His church begun in the previous chapter.
The links between Revelation 13 and Revelation 17 are many and are critical for understanding the overall message of the book. The beast suffers a “mortal wound” and yet lives. The healing of the mortal wound causes the whole world to marvel (Revelation 13:3, 12). The mark of the beast and the identity of the beast are connected to the number 666.
John says that the identifying of this individual or entity “calls for wisdom” and involves some kind of calculation or insightful recognition (Revelation 13:18). Another call for wisdom occurs at Revelation 17:9. The content here involves a “mystery” regarding both the harlot and the beast (Revelation 17:7).
“The links between Revelation 13 and Revelation 17 are many and are critical for understanding the overall message of the book.”
The Modern Babylon View
The need to take “Babylon” in Revelation as the literal city of Babylon is felt especially within dispensational circles. The Bible says what it means and means what it says, so it is argued. The problem of course is that Revelation is full of symbols and metaphors, and we find, for example, “Sodom” and “Egypt” as apparent designations for Jerusalem, “where their Lord was crucified” (Revelation 11:8, ESV).
Interest in Babylon as an ancient city whose ruins lie in modern-day Iraq held sway during the years Saddam Hussein kept power but has lessened in more recent years for obvious reasons! The future is always full of surprises, and the news cycles regularly cover developments in the Middle East, but the future ascendancy of a rebuilt Babylon to a position of eventual world domination, as some today envision, represents a future difficult to embrace. Any such “faith” position needs to be grounded in clear Bible teaching, not just in overly charged speculation.
The Papacy View
A popular view among many Protestant commentators has been the “papacy view” in which the Roman pope is equated with the end-times “antichrist” or “beast” of Revelation. (To clarify, Revelation never uses the term “antichrist,” but rather the “beast.”)
From Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation, and even earlier, some form of the “papacy view” has persisted. In more recent years, however, it has diminished in appeal. Such a view represents a common element of an “historicist” approach in which the emergence of the Roman Catholic Church, the rise of Islam, the growth of modern ecclesiastical liberalism, and other developments are viewed as foreseen in John’s visions.
The candidates regarded as fulfillments of Bible prophecy throughout the Christian era are seemingly endless. This alone should warrant caution. Fewer and fewer more recent commentaries, especially technical ones, embrace the view that the papacy is being targeted in Revelation. The overall historicist approach in general has been in steady decline.
Ancient Rome as the Great Harlot
A popular view today regarding “Babylon the Harlot” in Revelation 17-18 is that ancient Rome, or the Roman Empire, is the harlot who rides the beast (Revelation 17:3). This view is held among conservative and liberal scholars alike. The arguments for this view are persuasive, especially in light of the importance of Rome in connection with the rise of persecution against Christians, a major focus of the book.
Whether we think of the atrocities against Christians in Rome at the hands of Nero or the climate of uncertainty, suspicion, and trepidation present during Domitian’s reign, Rome’s persecution of Christians was a first-century reality, one that would persist and increase in the several centuries that followed.
As previously suggested, Rome or Roman hegemony makes the best candidate for the beast that rose out of the sea (Revelation 13:1). And with respect to compelling imagery, the conceptual transition from the city goddess “Roma” to the prostitute “Babylon” is admittedly effortless. The immoralities, idolatries, and brutalities of the early Roman Empire make it a logical candidate as the deserving recipient of the outpouring of God’s wrath. This might very well be the correct approach, but some have voiced concerns regarding this identification. I have strong reservations that will be explained below.
One viable alternative is to equate ancient Jerusalem with the Great Harlot of Revelation 17-18. With this view, riding the beast suggests collaboration with the beast and certainly such collaboration was true of the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem, especially among the Sadducees and Herodians. The Jerusalem view will be explored following a critique of the Roman Empire view.
“Rome or Roman hegemony makes the best candidate for the beast that rose out of the sea.”
In Revelation 17, an angel invites John to see the judgment of the Great Harlot, but it is notable that much of the “mystery” involved actually relates to the scarlet beast upon which the woman rides, not to the woman herself (Revelation 17:5, 7). That beast, like the great dragon (Revelation 12:3), has seven heads and ten horns (Revelation 13:1), and it bears blasphemous names (Revelation 17:3). John is told that “a mind with wisdom” is needed for understanding the identities of the seven heads that represented seven rulers (Revelation 17:9-11). Not inconsistent with apocalyptic imagery are the complexities involved.
The angel goes on to explain that the seven heads not only represent seven rulers but also seven mountains, mountains that almost all agree describe the ancient city of Rome. The puzzle that many seem to ignore is that since the Great Harlot rides upon the seven-headed beast and the beast eventually devours her, how can she be identified with Rome, since the beast seems to be Rome? Some opine that the basic lesson for us is how evil destroys evil, but I need more than that here!
It is true that both the beast and the harlot are said to be persecutors of the church. Does that make them both the same entity? Not necessarily. In fact, much of the New Testament shows a strong emphasis upon the Jews as persecutors of the Christian community. The persecution under Nero in Rome comes after the great fire in Rome in A.D. 64 but is not mentioned in the New Testament directly.
“It is true that both the beast and the harlot are said to be persecutors of the church. Does that make them both the same entity?”
Revelation may be covering persecutions from both directions. By the time of Domitian there is much to report. The woman is said to be “drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus” (Revelation 17:6, ESV), while the beast itself, John earlier writes, “was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them” (Revelation 13:7, ESV).
In other words, both the harlot and the beast are persecutors of the church. Pertinent questions would be whether or not these are separate entities and in what sense might they be related. The uncertainty involved is perhaps the uneasy product of the phenomenon of apocalyptic imagery, but questions persist.
I do find the identification of the Great Harlot as Rome awkward. In what sense is Rome riding the beast (also apparently Rome)? Apocalyptic language can be disorienting: an obscene woman, “drunk from blood,” rides upon a beast with seven heads, heads that represent seven emperors as well as the seven hills of Rome. Clearly a “mystery” calling for a bit of “wisdom.”
A problem little discussed by commentators is the inappropriateness of the fall of ancient Rome as a fulfillment of the oracles in Revelation (Revelation 16:19-21; 17:1-19:3). Ancient Rome fell in the fifth century AD, and much had happened by then regarding Rome’s relationship with the church.
The message from heaven to John was that the great city Babylon would be destroyed “in a single hour” (Revelation 18:10, 17, 19, ESV; “in a single day,” Revelation 18:8, ESV). Revelation’s description of Babylon’s violent fall pictures a deserved, catastrophic event and the description “in a single hour” describes a level of suddenness and finality. How does the fall of Rome fit in with such a description? Not very well, as we will now see.
“Revelation’s description of Babylon’s violent fall pictures a deserved, catastrophic event and the description ‘in a single hour’ describes a level of suddenness and finality.”
The barbarians who sacked Rome were known by designations such as Vandals and Goths. We get our word vandalism from the former! The Visigoths (western Goths) under their chieftain Alaric sacked Rome in A.D. 410. This attack marked the first arrival of a foreign army at the gates of Rome since Hannibal 625 years earlier. Soon after, in 412, Augustine of Hippo began writing his enduring classic City of God.
The Vandals took control of the western Mediterranean and in 455 they sacked Rome, plundering it worse than the Visigoths had forty-five years previously.[1] But that was not all. German mercenaries led by Odovacar took over Rome in 476, and this is the oft-cited traditional date for the “fall of Rome.” Historian Jim North notably comments, “Actually little changed. Roman administration had been collapsing in the West for some decades….”[2]
Jaroslav Pelikan has provided a stimulating account of the fall of Rome and how both ancient writers and modern historians have approached the topic: The Excellent Empire: The Fall of Rome and the Triumph of the Church (1987). Highly recommended.
Among the works of ancient Christian authors, those by Tertullian, Jerome, and Augustine will be touched upon briefly here. Tertullian was representative of those who viewed the welfare of Rome and of the world in general as intimately connected.
Based on his understanding of the “man of lawlessness” in 2 Thessalonians 2, Tertullian, labeled the first theologian of the Latin West, championed the view that the “restrainer” delaying the arrival of the “antichrist” was the Roman Empire itself and he understood that the fall of Rome would signal the arrival of this antichrist. Thus Tertullian urged prayer for Rome to stave off “a mighty shock impending over the whole earth—in fact, the very end of all things…”[3]
“Tertullian, labeled the first theologian of the Latin West, championed the view that the ‘restrainer’ delaying the arrival of the ‘antichrist’ was the Roman Empire itself.”
The great fourth-to-fifth-century biblical scholar Jerome held similar views. The end was being retarded only by Rome’s continued existence. Jerome’s views of Rome had changed over the years. He could no longer gleefully cite Revelation 17 identifying Rome as Babylon the Harlot upon Rome’s fall to Alaric in 410. He would acknowledge that in fact Rome “with the confession of Christ blotted out the blasphemy written on her forehead.”[4]
Augustine’s grief over the fall of Rome was profound. Part of his motivation in writing was to explain that Rome’s fate was not the result of its acceptance of Christianity. He notes the remarkable fact of Alaric’s sparing Christians who took refuge in the shrine of Peter and views such unprecedented restraint in warfare as a triumph of Christ and the church.[5]
Roughly a century before Alaric’s conquest of Rome, Constantine had converted to Christianity and upon becoming emperor transformed the dynamics of the empire’s approach to that religion and to paganism. Jim North estimated that in the century prior to the 410 sack of Rome, the percentage of the Roman Empire that was Christian grew from about 10 percent to about 90 percent of the population.[6] A common view is that the number of Christians in that span grew from roughly three to four million to thirty million or more, or roughly half of the empire’s population.
“Jim North estimated that in the century prior to the 410 sack of Rome, the percentage of the Roman Empire that was Christian grew from about 10 percent to about 90 percent of the population.”
Whatever the precise number, the growth of Christianity in the Roman Empire during the years between Constantine’s conversion and the 410 sack of Rome was remarkable. All this is to say that the nature and timing of Rome’s fall with respect to the prophecy regarding the fall of Babylon the Harlot is odd at best and troubling at worst. Of what benefit was the destruction of Rome over 300 years later when, in reality, it had now become a major center of Christianity and Christian influence in the ancient world? (I am not attempting here to specify what makes one a Christian.)
I concur with North that Constantine’s conversion was genuine. Following his conversion, Constantine never again offered a sacrifice, and he suppressed the attempt by the imperial cult to offer sacrifices to him.[7] I find little discussion in conservative Christian commentaries about the awkwardness of such a delayed fulfillment of Revelation’s condemnation of the Great Harlot.
As emperor, Constantine convened church councils to settle divisive theological issues (for example, the Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325). The success of the church mattered deeply to him. His founding of Constantinople in the east in 330 as the new capital of the empire greatly diminished Rome’s political significance. However, one thing that Rome had that Constantinople did not was its apostolic foundation and prestige in the Christian Mediterranean world. An eastern capital of the empire was created with Constantinople, in part, to allow Constantine fuller expression of Christian promotion as displayed in the many churches and shrines erected.
“Following his conversion, Constantine never again offered a sacrifice, and he suppressed the attempt by the imperial cult to offer sacrifices to him.”
In advocating a reformed Rome’s demise as an example of God’s righteous wrath, some might suggest “too little, too late” regarding Rome’s transformation—the die was cast—but one of the problems for theologians and historians regarding the fall of Rome must be the applicability of such a delayed destruction as a fulfillment of judgment in light of the transformative events that had occurred in regard to the church and Rome to that point.
In light of the remarkable changes the century previous, heaven’s “Hallelujahs” in response to the fall of a fifth-century Rome ring a bit hollow for me (Revelation 19:1-5). Additionally, as will now be further developed, if Rome’s fall was a necessary precursor of Christ’s return, any notion through the centuries of Christ’s imminent (any-moment) coming goes out the window.
Ancient Jerusalem as the Great Harlot
In spite of the issues outlined above, numerous commentators view the Great Harlot “Babylon” as ancient Rome. However, the view that Babylon the Harlot is Jerusalem also has its adherents and proponents, including strict preterist David Chilton, partial preterist Kenneth Gentry, and critical scholars such as Margaret Barker and J. Massyngberde Ford.
The following overview addresses the possibility of Jerusalem being the Great Harlot in light of the nature of the references to Jews, Israel, and Jerusalem throughout Revelation, in light of parallels in Ezekiel’s prophecies and in other Old Testament oracles of doom, and in light of the overall trajectory of Revelation 17.
This trajectory involves the “mystery” and “wisdom” related to the arrival, disappearance, and reappearance of the beast and its seven (also eight!) heads (Revelation 17:7-11) and the tie-in of this with “the judgment of the great prostitute” (Revelation 7:1, 16-17; 16:19-21).
Jerusalem and the Jews
The fact that the name “Jerusalem” is found only three times in Revelation is both surprising and potentially significant. In all three instances, the reference has to do with the eternal New Jerusalem, not with the former Jewish capital (Revelation 3:12; 21:2, 10), another fact worth noting. Within the storyline found in Revelation 11, the ancient earthly city Jerusalem is designated “the holy city,” yet one trampled down by the Gentiles (Revelation 11:2), and “the great city,” yet one in which Jesus had been crucified (Revelation 11:8).
The low esteem held for it in this vision is evidenced not only by the description of the evil perpetrated within it (Revelation 11:7-12), but also by the dubious nomenclature granted it: “Sodom and Egypt” (Revelation 11:8)! The prophet Isaiah had opened his magisterial work with a description of Jerusalem as a whore whom he called “Sodom” (Isaiah 1:10). Ezekiel then reminded Jerusalem and Judah that their whoring had begun long ago in, you guessed it, Egypt (Ezekiel 23:19-21, 27).
We find only sporadic references to Jerusalem as “the holy city” in both the Old Testament (for example, Nehemiah 11:1, 18) and New Testament (Matthew 4:5; 27:53; Revelation 11:2) and several cases in Revelation where the New Jerusalem is termed “the holy city” (Revelation 21:2, 10; 22:19). Referring to the despicable city described in Revelation 11 as “the holy city” may seem a bit odd since the same city is described as “the great city that symbolically is called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified” (Revelation 11:8). Perhaps the mention of the temple and its outer court played a role here in its designation as “holy” (Revelation 11:2).
“The fact that the name ‘Jerusalem’ is found only three times in Revelation is both surprising and potentially significant.”
Of greater interest is the fact that “the holy city” is also described here as “the great city.” This initial use of that term in the book is followed by seven more (Revelation 11:8; 16:19; 17:18; 18:10,16, 18, 19, 21). It is at least likely that the eight references to “the great city” all refer to the same city in Revelation. And that would be Jerusalem.
The book of Hebrews speaks of “the heavenly Jerusalem” as the present (as well as future) home of the redeemed, “the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven” (Hebrews 12:22-23). In a sense, then, Christians already have a home in “Jerusalem.” When Revelation speaks of Satan’s final efforts to destroy God’s people, it describes an attempted attack upon “the camp of the saints and the beloved city” (Revelation 20:9, ESV). These designations almost certainly refer to the church.
The extensive harlotry imagery employed in the Old Testament prophets regarding Jerusalem (especially in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, and Ezekiel) makes more than plausible the notion that John (our “new Ezekiel”) might designate the apostate Jerusalem of his generation “Babylon the Harlot.” That idea is enhanced further by the intriguing fact that first-century Jerusalem is never designated “Jerusalem” in Revelation. Such a lacking aids the suggestion that in Revelation, the unfaithful Jewish capital bears the special title “Babylon the Great.”
For Paul writing to the Galatians, the apostate Jerusalem of his day corresponded to Hagar the slave woman and to Mount Sinai, both images reflecting Jerusalem’s failure to embrace God’s new covenant with His people (Galatians 4:25). The son(s) of the slave woman persecuted the children of promise (Galatians 4:29). Calling first-century Jerusalem “Babylon” in Revelation might not be that much of a stretch.
“For Paul writing to the Galatians, the apostate Jerusalem of his day corresponded to Hagar the slave woman and to Mount Sinai, both images reflecting Jerusalem’s failure to embrace God’s new covenant with His people.”
The infrequent mention of the Jews in Revelation is instructive as well. The term “Jews” occurs but twice, each time in the letters to the churches (Revelation 2:9; 3:9). Both references are strongly negative in that each Jewish synagogue mentioned is described as “a synagogue of Satan.” Those in the synagogue who say they are Jews are lying. How so?
Some suggest that the Jews involved had harmed their fellowship with their synagogue through the violation of certain Jewish restrictions, but most likely they are involved with the persecution of the Christians in Smyrna and Philadelphia. The language of Revelation 3:9 contains an Old Testament allusion involving reversal: what the Old Testament promised that the Gentile world would eventually do for Israel—bow down and pay homage—Jesus now tells the church that the Jews will someday do for them: “…behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and they will learn that I have loved you” (Revelation 3:9, ESV).
Revelation builds on Isaiah here. In vivid language, Isaiah promised that in the future those who had afflicted Israel would pay homage to Israel (Isaiah 45:14; 49:23; 60:14). At Revelation 3:9, those who afflict God’s people “Israel” are the Jews themselves, since the besieged church represents God’s “new Israel.” Thus the tone is set quite early in the book of Revelation regarding Christ’s rejection of the false claims of Jews who had rejected Him as Messiah and Lord.
The Name “Israel”
In reviewing Revelation’s approach to Israel and Jerusalem as a whole, it may further surprise some that the name “Israel” also occurs only three times in the book (Revelation 2:14; 7:4; 21:12). One occurrence (Revelation 2:14) is in reference to the Old Testament Balaam son of Beor (Numbers 22-24; 31:8, 16); another describes the twelve gates of the New Jerusalem as having the names of the tribes of the sons of Israel inscribed upon them (Revelation 21:12). John also describes twelve foundation stones in the New Jerusalem bearing the names of the twelve apostles on them (Revelation 21:14).
At Revelation 7:4, we find the name “Israel” in connection with 12,000 from each of the twelve tribes, thus 144,000. The debate continues as to whether these 144,000 refer to Israelite believers or to the followers of Christ in general. I hold the latter view and also that these 144,000 who are servants of God with seals on their foreheads are likely the same group described in the next few verses as a “great multitude” from all nations who come out of “the great tribulation” (Revelation 7:9-14).
Later in Revelation 14, the 144,000 are described as standing with the Lamb worshiping, singing a song that can only be learned by them. These 144,000 are described as having been “redeemed from the earth” (Revelation 14:3). They have been “redeemed from mankind as firstfruits for God and the Lamb” (Revelation 14:4, ESV). The language here sounds a universal tone and suggests that the 144,000 represent the people of God as a whole, Jew and Gentile.
“The language here sounds a universal tone and suggests that the 144,000 represent the people of God as a whole, Jew and Gentile.”
Jerusalem Judged?
Later chapters provide possible references to Jerusalem’s judgment. The trampling of the holy city for forty-two months (Revelation 11:2) seems to correspond to Jesus’ language in the Olivet Discourse where He said “Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Luke 21:24). At Revelation 11:13, we see a description of a great earthquake from which the “city” fell, likely Jerusalem (compare “the holy city” [Revelation 11:2]; also “the great city” where Christ was crucified [Revelation 11:8]).
Seven thousand are killed in the earthquake, a seeming reversal of the remnant concept in the Old Testament in which seven thousand (a symbolic number) are left or spared (1 Kings 19:18; Romans 11:4). Here, however, it is the seven thousand, a partial representation, that are destroyed. Others seem to repent.
Elsewhere, in a description of judgment involving a grape harvest, the wrath of God results in blood flowing from the winepress which was trodden “outside the city.” The blood “flowed from the winepress, as high as a horse’s bridle, for 1,600 stadia” (Revelation 14:20, ESV).
The city mentioned here is very possibly Jerusalem, while the dimension 1,600 stadia (approximately 184 miles) is often viewed by commentators as an approximation of the length of Palestine or Israel’s territory, perhaps measured from Tyre in the north to the border of Egypt in the south. The reference to blood as high as a horse’s bridle is figurative and has numerous close parallels in Jewish apocalyptic and rabbinic literature.
“Later chapters provide possible references to Jerusalem’s judgment.”
The Earthquake Before Armageddon
At the pouring out of the seventh bowl (Revelation 16:17), the greatest earthquake ever causes “the great city” to split into three parts. In this event, “God remembered Babylon the great” by pouring out his wrath (Revelation 16:18-19). Great hailstones “about 100 pounds each” fell from heaven on people and they cursed God because of this plague of hail (Revelation 16:21). The Greek term translated “about 100 pounds each” is talantiaios, “weighing a talent.” The same term is used by Josephus in describing the huge stones hurled by the catapults of Rome’s Tenth Legion against Jerusalem (War 5.269-274).
In Revelation 16, Jesus warns of that great day of judgment to transpire at the “battle of Armageddon” while reminding, “Behold, I am coming like a thief…” (Revelation 16:15, ESV). Strange battle! Clearly the language here is pointing to God’s final judgment of evildoers at the second coming (Revelation 16:14-16; 19:11ff.).
In contrast, the extended description of judgment upon “Babylon the Great” (Revelation 16:17-18:24) seems to describe an outpouring of wrath prior to and separate from the events surrounding the second coming. In connection with the giant “hailstones” falling from the sky (from catapults?) we read “…and they cursed God for the plague of the hail, because the plague was so severe” (Revelation 16:21, ESV).
“Clearly the language here is pointing to God’s final judgment of evildoers at the second coming.”
Such language perhaps could apply either to the destruction of Jerusalem or to the second coming “plagues” (compare Revelation 16:1-11). However, later in the text, the merchants of the world do not express fear for their own immediate safety but rather chagrin over the extensive revenues lost because of the Great Harlot’s demise (Revelation 18:11-19). This seems an unlikely sentiment in connection with the second coming. What is this outpouring of wrath bemoaned in Revelation 18? Many point to the fall of Rome in the fifth century (A.D. 410? 476?), while others suggest the fall of Jerusalem in the first century (A.D. 70).
Again, the “Rome” option regarding the fall of Babylon would seem to lessen any notion of an imminent (at any moment) second coming. If we insert the identification of Babylon as Rome into the mix, both the A.D. 70 fall of Jerusalem (Olivet Discourse) and the fifth-century fall of Rome would be necessary precursors of the second coming. Another weakness in the Rome as “Babylon” option.
Babylon the Great
If “Babylon the great” at Revelation 16:19 refers to Jerusalem, then obviously that is the identity of Babylon the Harlot in Revelation 17-18 as well. Does the language of Revelation 17-18 support such a possibility?
Commentators often point to the ending of Revelation 17 as clear evidence that Rome is the intended city, not Jerusalem. The last verse of that chapter will be addressed below, and Jerusalem will be shown to be a viable identification for the city mentioned. In my estimation, at least two key arguments emerge from the language of Revelation 17-18 that point to Jerusalem as the intended city.
First, we need to revisit the likelihood of Ezekiel’s imprint upon John’s own words here, especially in view of Ezekiel’s extended, provocative descriptions of Old Testament Jerusalem as a wicked harlot (Ezekiel 16, 23).
Second, we need to examine the “mystery” and “wisdom” aspects of John’s description of the seven-headed beast of Revelation 17: its arrival on the scene, its temporary demise, its return on the scene, and its ultimate destruction. In the midst of all this, the beast and the “ten kings” turn against Babylon the Harlot to destroy her. The merchants of the world weep at their lost revenues. Who are the players in this drama and when is it played out? Answers to those questions will help us identify Revelation’s “Babylon the great.”
Ezekiel 16 and 23 make tough preaching from the pulpit. Frankly, I have not attempted it! Ezekiel describes the whoredom of Jerusalem in vivid language that tends to make most modern readers squirm (compare Isaiah 1; Jeremiah 3; Hosea 1-4).
“We need to revisit the likelihood of Ezekiel’s imprint upon John’s own words here.”
We must keep in mind, however, that the explicit sexual language is for the most part metaphoric. Harlotry, sexual promiscuity, and the like are metaphors of unfaithfulness describing the reality of Judah’s idolatry and wickedness. In making the case for Jerusalem being identified as the Great Harlot of Revelation 17-18, one could argue that John mimics to some extent Ezekiel’s lewd descriptions of Jerusalem leading up to its earlier destruction by Babylon in the sixth century BC.
Of course, as Jesus Himself noted (Matthew 23:29-38), the Jerusalem of the first Christian century would be guilty of the death of Israel’s Messiah Himself. What level of condemnation could one expect for that? In the Old Testament, the harlot metaphor is applied to Jerusalem (frequently), Nineveh (Nahum 3:4-7) and Phoenician Tyre (Isaiah 23:15-17), but not actually to Babylon itself, although that ancient city certainly did fit the unsightly mold. However, the one ancient city for which the metaphor would involve more precisely the notion of unfaithfulness or a broken covenant relationship would, of course, be Jerusalem.
Jerusalem the Harlot
For students of the Old Testament, the identification of the Great Harlot in Revelation 17 as the city of Jerusalem may make a lot of sense. Repeatedly, Israel’s prophets addressed the nation with such terminology. The book of Hosea is based upon the painful analogy between the faithlessness of Hosea’s wife Gomer and that of the Israelite nation whose “husband” was Yahweh God (see especially Hosea 1-3). Throughout the book, God’s people are accused of “playing the whore” as depicted by their attraction to pagan gods and practices (Hosea 1:2; 4:10-19; 5:3-4; 6:10; 9:1).
Isaiah opens his majestic work with a series of accusations against Judah and Jerusalem. “How the faithful city has become a whore, she who was full of justice! Righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers” (Isaiah 1:21, ESV). The names “Sodom” and “Gomorrah” are applied by the prophet to the faithless residents of Jerusalem (Isaiah 1:8-10; compare “Sodom and Egypt” at Revelation 11:8).
Jeremiah begins his imposing book with similar accusations. He proclaimed, “You have played the whore with many lovers” (Jeremiah 3:1, ESV). Both Israel and Judah “played the whore” (Jeremiah 3:6-9). As for Israel, “She went out on every high hill and under every green tree and there played the whore” (Jeremiah 3:6, ESV). Judah followed suit (Jeremiah 3:8-10).
“Isaiah opens his majestic work with a series of accusations against Judah and Jerusalem.”
Especially relevant, in light of our characterization of John as the “new Ezekiel,”[8] are descriptions in Ezekiel 16 and 23 of Jerusalem as a lewd, uncontrollable whore. The language is graphic, violent, and repulsive. Awareness of Ezekiel’s metaphoric language regarding Jerusalem’s harlotry or whoredom makes Revelation’s application of the expression “Babylon the great” in Revelation 17 to rebellious first-century Jerusalem more plausible. Importantly, the ministry and book of Ezekiel, more than the efforts of any other prophet, served as a model and blueprint for the ministry of John in his writing of Revelation.
In John’s day, Jerusalem had played the harlot with Rome (“riding on the beast,” Revelation 17:3-11) much as she had with both the Assyrians (Ezekiel 16:28; 23:11-13) and the Babylonians (Ezekiel 16:29; 23:14-18), and, even before that, with the Egyptians (Ezekiel 16:26; 23:3-4, 19-21). In turn, God would use the Babylonians (586 B.C.) and later the Romans (A.D. 70) to punish apostate Jerusalem. As Revelation states, when the beast and its ten horns destroy the harlot, they carry out God’s divine purposes (Revelation 17:16-17). The fact that Yahweh God is in charge here, not Rome, addresses several of the deep concerns that John’s contemporaries had regarding God’s purposes and plans for His people.
Past, Not Future, Events
The focus of Revelation 17 would seem to favor the identification of Jerusalem as the harlot destroyed by the beast. The angel promises to show John the judgment of the great prostitute (Revelation 17:1). In his doing so, much attention is paid to events involving the fall and rise of certain heads of the beast (Revelation 17:7-11).
Leading up to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the Roman Empire experienced a terrifying upheaval that resulted in a “mortal wound” being healed to the amazement of the world (Revelation 13:3, 12, 14). We have described the tumultuous “Year of the Four Emperors” as a perilous episode for Rome after Nero’s suicide. I am convinced that the “mortal wound” phase of the beast is the “is not” phase mentioned at Revelation 17:8, after which there is a recovery, one described in two conflicting ways.
From the divine perspective, the angel states that the beast will rise from the bottomless pit and then go to destruction (Revelation 17:8a), while instead the world marvels because it thinks the beast “was and is not and is to come” (Revelation 17:8b, ESV). Those who worship the beast do not realize its ultimate defeat is sure. Its “resurrection” will not stand. Unlike the Eternal One sitting on the throne who is described repeatedly with slight variation as “the One who is and who was and who is to come” (Revelation 1:4, 8; 4:8; 11:17; 16:5, ESV), the beast will not endure. His days are numbered.
“Those who worship the beast do not realize its ultimate defeat is sure.”
For the much-disputed Revelation 17:10, I would therefore argue the following. Nero was the fifth king and he had “fallen.” His death in A.D. 68 and the consequent turmoil that nearly brought Rome to its knees was the “mortal wound” that was remarkably “healed.” If Nero was the fifth ruler, then Augustus would have been the first, even though most other ancient sources list him as second following Julius Caesar (so we have 1-5 = Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, and Nero or Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, and Claudius).
In support of Augustus as the first of the kings here, we observe that a civil war broke out after the death of Julius that was not settled for more than a dozen years. No ongoing dynasty was yet in place until Octavian (now “Augustus”) took absolute control. Questions are raised as to whether Julius was the first actual “emperor” anyway. Also, perhaps most importantly, we should consider that, from the perspective of the early church, Rome’s role as the beastly opponent of Christ and the church would have begun with Augustus (27 B.C.–A.D. 14), not Julius Caesar.
Most Roman and Jewish sources do list Augustus as second, but Revelation 12-13 pictures the beast arriving on the scene in connection with Satan’s initial attacks upon the incarnate Christ and His church. Augustus fits that time frame best. (As Luke’s Christmas story unfolds, “…a decree went out from Caesar Augustus…” [Luke 2:1]). Jewish works like 4 Ezra do portray Julius as the first ruler, the “first wing” upon the “great eagle,” using that work’s metaphor for the early Roman Empire. Since in 4 Ezra 11:13-17 the “second wing” reigns twice as long as any of the others, that wing must represent Augustus.
“Nero was the fifth king and he had ‘fallen.'”
However, we should note that the Roman conflict with Jerusalem and Judea had begun earlier, highlighted by the capture of Jerusalem by Pompey in 63 B.C. and by his blatant desecration of the temple in his entering the Holy of Holies. Julius Caesar perhaps fits best as the first ruler for the author of 4 Ezra, but Augustus Caesar fits best for Revelation’s symbolic synopsis.
After the “is not” days in connection with the Roman Civil War (Revelation 17:8, 11), the “one is” would be Vespasian and the one “not yet come” who will remain only “a little while” would be Titus (Revelation 17:10), who reigned but two years (A.D. 79-81). The eighth beast/ head is Domitian who is reigning at the time Revelation is written. He is an “eighth,” but he “belongs to the seven” and goes to destruction (Revelation 17:11). As the eighth, he importantly represents an element beyond the seven, but he has similarities to one of the seven, namely Nero. Again, Domitian was commonly regarded as a “Second Nero” by ancient authors.
The relevant, well-known historical events above lead up to the judgment of the harlot, and John emphasizes that God had placed into the heart of the beast and the ten horns the desire to carry out His purposes “until the words of God are fulfilled” (Revelation 17:17, ESV). Two important conclusions seem to derive from these words: (1) Jerusalem’s fall was the work of God, while (2) Rome was His instrument of judgment. God used the beast to punish His own (now apostate) people! Sounds familiar to students of the Old Testament.
“Jerusalem’s fall was the work of God, while Rome was His instrument of judgment.”
The view above sees these specific descriptions in Revelation not as predictive but as interpretive of recent events, events in which the hand of God was at work. In this reconstruction, the one “who is,” according to the angel, is the one who is the head of the beast when the beast desolates the Great Harlot, namely Vespasian. Correspondingly, it is his remarkable rise to power that heals the beast’s “mortal wound.” The emergence of the Flavian Dynasty (Vespasian, Titus, Domitian) causes the world to marvel.
The ten horns of the beast are symbols of earthly power and serve here to describe broadly the ancient, fluid coalition of kingdoms at Rome’s beck and call. Numerous nations played a role in the destruction of Jerusalem and their cooperation with Rome’s forces was fueled by a widespread, deeply seated disdain for the Jewish people and their practices.
The future demise of the beast at Christ’s return is also said to involve these “horns,” worldly anti-Christian forces then present who will share in the trauma when Christ defeats and destroys the beast (and false prophet) whom they serve (Revelation 17:12-18; 19:17-21).
In his highly influential Jesus and the Victory of God (1996), N. T. Wright concluded that Old Testament imagery regarding ancient Babylon, despised enemy and oppressor of Yahweh’s chosen, is actually applied to first-century Jerusalem by Jesus Himself! How so?
“Numerous nations played a role in the destruction of Jerusalem and their cooperation with Rome’s forces was fueled by a widespread, deeply seated disdain for the Jewish people and their practices.”
Wright and others have written much about the spiritual “return from exile” envisioned and accomplished by Jesus in His messianic role. According to many, the “new Israel” was announced and founded through Christ’s redemptive work, a work opposed by Satan and by Jerusalem and its religious hierarchy.
Satan, not Rome, is the enemy Jesus singles out in His teachings, and it is Jerusalem, not Rome, that plays the role of Babylon the oppressor. Jesus warns His followers (the true Israel now) to flee from their oppressor, i.e., Jerusalem, when it is attacked by God’s agent of judgment, Rome’s armies. All three versions of the Olivet Discourse warn Jesus’ followers to flee from Jerusalem (akin to a spiritual “Babylon”) when it faces imminent destruction (Matthew 24:15-25; Mark 13:14-23; Luke 21:20-24; see Wright, 356-360 and parallels in Jeremiah 50:8-10; 51:6).
The Dominion of Jerusalem
And the angel said to me, “The waters that you saw, where the prostitute is seated, are peoples and multitudes and nations and languages. And the ten horns that you saw, they and the beast will hate the prostitute. They will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire, for God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and handing over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled. And the woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth.” (Revelation 17:15-18, ESV)
Revelation 17:18 is key for the argument of many that the harlot of Revelation 17-18 cannot be Jerusalem, but rather, must be Rome. Although previously John used the term “the great city” to describe Jerusalem itself (Revelation 11:8), most commentators see no reasonable way in which Jerusalem can be described as having “dominion over the kings of the earth.” However, a solid argument can be made for such a designation.
When the Jewish philosopher and statesman Philo arrived in Rome as part of a delegation to petition the Roman emperor Gaius (Caligula), it was discovered that the emperor was planning to erect a colossal statue of himself as Zeus in the Jerusalem temple. Philo describes in detail the intense grief and anxiety this news brought.
“Most commentators see no reasonable way in which Jerusalem can be described as having ‘dominion over the kings of the earth.’ However, a solid argument can be made for such a designation.”
In response to the news, the emperor’s dear Jewish friend, Herod Agrippa, wrote a lengthy, impassioned letter seeking to dissuade his friend from his intended actions. Historians may debate to what extent Philo’s account of the content of Agrippa’s letter represents Philo more than Agrippa himself, but the wording of the letter speaks to the importance given to Jerusalem in the middle of the first century A.D. by influential Jewish leaders. The importance of the wording requires the following quoted excerpts. After Agrippa assures Gaius of the fact that the Jews “love their Caesar,” he writes:
“As for the holy city, I must say what befits me to say. While she, as I have said, is my native city she is also the mother city not of one country Judaea but of most of the others in virtue of the colonies sent out at divers times to the neighboring lands….And not only are the mainlands full of Jewish colonies but also the most highly esteemed of the islands Euboea, Cypress, Crete. I say nothing of the countries beyond the Euphrates, for except for a small part they all, Babylon and of the other satrapies those where the land within their confines is highly fertile, have Jewish inhabitants. So that if my own home-city is granted a share of your goodwill the benefit extends not to one city but to myriads of the others situated in every region of the inhabited world….It well befits the magnitude of your great good fortune that by benefiting one city you should benefit myriads of others also so that through every part of the world your glory should be celebrated and your praises mingled with thanksgiving resound.”[9]
“The wording of the letter speaks to the importance given to Jerusalem in the middle of the first century A.D. by influential Jewish leaders.”
The Greek root myriad means “ten thousand,” and although it is used hyperbolically here (“myriads of others”), the point is made. Both the islands and the mainlands were “full of Jewish colonies.” Countless cities in the Roman sphere and beyond were impacted by what impacted Jerusalem. According to Agrippa, Jerusalem was a “mother city” to most of the countries within the Roman Empire in that numerous Jews had settled into those various regions and their ties to Jerusalem were strong. The New Testament makes mention of the extensive pilgrimages of Jews to Jerusalem for the festivals (Acts 2:5-11; 20:16; 21:17 ff.). The coffers in Jerusalem bulged from the vast resources delivered via the “temple tax,” a financial obligation for the Jews throughout the Jewish Diaspora and thus throughout Rome’s empire that, prior to the temple’s destruction, substituted for offerings to the Roman deities.
Jerusalem’s “dominion” within the Roman Empire was unsurpassed by any city save Rome itself, with the possible exception of Alexandria, Egypt, which exercised control of the food supply for the empire.
The Beast That Now Is
The angel’s call for a “a mind with wisdom” (Revelation 17:9) can best be answered if the apologetic controversies involving Rome’s role and Jerusalem’s role in connection with the Christians and Jews of the first century be kept in mind.
Among the issues with which the late-first-century Christians likely struggled were:
- Why has God allowed a pagan empire to persecute His people, the church?
- Did the miraculous recovery of Rome following A.D. 68-69 indicate the supremacy of the Roman state and its deities and the inevitability of its success?
- Did Rome’s conquest of the Jewish nation and destruction of its holy city and temple indicate the superiority of Rome and its gods over the God of Israel?
- What is God’s view of the Jews’ current standing and their attempts to undermine His purposes for the church?
At the heart of the storyline in Revelation 17 are the events surrounding the rule of “the one who is” and the previous brief, tumultuous rules of those in the dramatic interlude involving the time when the beast “is not.” Nero was the last of the five who had fallen (Revelation 17:10) and the chaos subsequent to his death was described as a mortal wound that was miraculously healed (Revelation 13:3, 12-14).
The tumultuous “Long Year” or “Year of the Four Emperors” was the “is not” phase for the empire or the beast. The “resurrection” of the beast raised the obvious question for the Mediterranean world: “Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it?” (Revelation 13:4, ESV). Answer? No one! Or so it seemed.
“Nero was the last of the five who had fallen and the chaos subsequent to his death was described as a mortal wound that was miraculously healed.”
The rise of the Flavian Dynasty involving Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian was a remarkable turn of events, one that the new dynastic leaders sought to buttress and exploit whenever possible. A significant part of that strategy involved the ongoing emphasis upon Rome’s defeat of Jerusalem and the god of the Jews. A glorious Roman Triumph in A.D. 71, the production of coins celebrating the defeat of the Jews, the display of the items confiscated from the Jerusalem temple before its destruction, etc., all played their role in the promotion of Flavian supremacy, indeed inevitability. 
Rome was back, the Jewish nation was destroyed, the church remained vulnerable, and questions lingered. I believe that John’s Apocalypse was produced in part to answer or at least address key questions like those noted above. The reign of Vespasian ended the “is not,” civil war phase of Rome’s struggles, and his efforts and those of his son Titus accomplished the destruction of Jerusalem that effectively ended the Jewish Revolt.
The Fall of “Babylon”
The sudden demise of “Babylon” elicits great sorrow and mourning from her various trade partners. Merchants who had gained great wealth from business with the harlot weep and mourn aloud: “Alas, alas, for the great city that was clothed in fine linen, in purple and scarlet, adorned with gold, with jewels and with pearls! For in a single hour all this wealth has been laid waste” (Revelation 18:16-17, ESV).
Shipmasters and merchants of the sea throw dust on their heads as they lament, “Alas, alas for the great city where all who had ships at sea grew rich by her wealth! For in a single hour she has been laid waste” (Revelation 18:19, ESV). A mighty angel tosses a great stone into the sea saying “So will Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence, and will be found no more; and the sound of harpists and musicians, of flute players and trumpeters, will be heard in you no more…” (Revelation 18:21-22a, ESV; compare Jeremiah 51:61-64).
The language above and in the rest of the chapter is strongly suggestive of a catastrophic event imbedded in the pages of ancient history, not entwined with the second coming and its accompanying circumstances. Turning to Ezekiel once again, we find perhaps the closest parallels to the language of Revelation 18 in the description of the fall of Tyre to Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians in Ezekiel 27. There, merchants and mariners grieve over the fall of that prominent trade center on the eastern edge of the Mediterranean.
“The language above and in the rest of the chapter is strongly suggestive of a catastrophic event imbedded in the pages of ancient history, not entwined with the second coming and its accompanying circumstances.”
In an extended metaphor, Ezekiel describes Tyre as a great trading vessel that sank during a powerful storm into the heart of the sea (Ezekiel 27:26-27). Tyre’s merchant partners weep bitterly over her loss: “They cast dust on their heads and wallow in ashes; they make themselves bald for you and put sackcloth on their waist, and they weep over you in bitterness of soul, with bitter mourning” (Ezekiel 27:30b-31, ESV).
The language applied to ancient Tyre here describes the collapse of a great economic power and center of international commerce. The best candidates for such descriptions in Revelation would be Rome or Jerusalem in light of arguments offered above.
The language at Revelation 18:16 deserves further comment. The luxuriant adornment of the great city at Revelation 18:16 is a repeat of the language at Revelation 17:4, where the harlot’s adornment is described. G. K. Beale joins others in noting that the listing of precious items here corresponds to the raiment of the high priest in Israel, utilizing the same terminology as that found in the Greek Old Testament (Exodus 25:3-7; 28:5-9). The same precious materials are found in the cargo list at Revelation 18:12-13.[10]
“The best candidates for such descriptions in Revelation would be Rome or Jerusalem in light of arguments offered above.”
The Old Testament scholar Iain Provan has called into question the common assumption that the trade depictions in Revelation 18:9-19 describe Rome’s exploitation of its considerable leverage over various trading partners. Such exploitation is read into the text by interpreters guided in part by their understanding that Rome is the Great Harlot and that greed and the lust for power are key aspects of the harlot’s evil. Understandable.
The listing of trade items in Revelation 18, however, could simply be indicative of typical ancient commercial enterprise as practiced in Old Testament times (as depicted by Ezekiel in Ezekiel 27). As Provan has noted, Revelation 18 actually makes no mention of economic exploitation, and its inclusion of horses and slaves (Revelation 18:13) and even chariots (Revelation 18:13) corresponds to the realities found in various Old Testament texts (including Ezekiel 27:13-14 regarding slaves and horses). The mention of chariots may speak to the oft-cited conditions in Solomon’s time (1 Kings 4:26-28) and need not depict the circumstances of Rome’s first-century trade practices.[11]
One could argue that Revelation’s extensive connections with the book of Ezekiel make even more likely the identification of the Great Harlot as Jerusalem, “the great city” (Revelation 11:8; 16:19; 17:18; 18:10,16, 19, 21). As well, Old Testament prophets like Isaiah, Hosea, and Jeremiah, along with Ezekiel, utilized graphic harlotry imagery in describing Jerusalem’s unfaithfulness to God.
“One could argue that Revelation’s extensive connections with the book of Ezekiel make even more likely the identification of the Great Harlot as Jerusalem.”
It seems right to contend that Jerusalem’s ultimate act of unfaithfulness to the God of Israel would have been its rejection of the Messiah Himself in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The “revelation of Jesus Christ” given to John the seer could be expected to match the warnings of Jesus earlier in which Jerusalem would be left desolate because of its rejection of Christ (Revelation 1:1; Matthew 23:37-38).
[1] James North, From Pentecost to the Present: A Short History of Christianity (Joplin: College Press, 1983), 112-114.
[2] North, 116.
[3] Jaroslav Pelikan, The Excellent Empire: The Fall of Rome and the Triumph of the Church (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), 47.
[4] Pelikan, 51.
[5] Pelikan, 93.
[6] North, 69.
[7] North, 63.
[8] See Larry Pechawer, Unraveling Revelation: Hope, Wisdom, and Mystery in John’s Apocalypse (2025), 95-101.
[9] Excerpts from Philo, The Embassy to Gaius, 281-284 (Loeb Classical Library).
[10] G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 912-913.
[11] Iain Provan, “Foul Spirits, Fornication and Finance: Revelation 18 from an Old Testament Perspective,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 64 (1996), 85-88.
To check out Dr. Larry Pechawer’s book Unraveling Revelation: Hope, Wisdom, and Mystery in John’s Apocalypse, click HERE.
