The Identity of Revelation's "Babylon," part 1

Below is the 29th of multiple excerpts of commentary on the Book of Revelation from The Parousia, the late 19th-century masterpiece on the Second Coming by James Stuart Russell.  In this excerpt, Russell begins his explanation of why Revelation's "Babylon" represents 1st-century Jerusalem, not Rome. 

The Identity of Revelation's "Babylon," part 1

"The Sixth Vision "THE HARLOT CITY, [Rev.] Chaps. xvii. [17] xviii. [18] xix. [19] xx. [20] "We now approach a part of our investigation in which we are about to make great demands upon the candour and impartiality of the reader, and must ask for a patient and unbiased weighing of the evidence that shall be brought before him. Possibly we may run counter to many prepossessions, but if the seat of judgment be occupied by an impartial love of truth, we do not fear an adverse decision.

"It may be convenient at the outset to take a general view of this vision as a whole, occupying as it does a larger space than any in the book, and thus indicating the pre-eminent importance of its contents. "It is introduced by a short preface or prologue (chap. xvii. 1, 2 [Rev. 17:1-2]). One of the vial-angels invites the Seer to come and behold the judgment of ‘the great harlot that sitteth on many waters.’ The vision is seen in ‘the wilderness.’ [Rev. 17:3] The prophet sees a woman sitting upon a scarlet-coloured wild beast, full of names of blasphemy, and having seven heads and ten horns. [Rev. 17:3] The woman is gorgeously arrayed in a robe of purple and scarlet, and decked with gold and precious stones, and holds in her hand a golden cup ‘full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication.’ [Rev. 17:4] On the forehead of this visionary figure is an inscription, ‘Mystery, Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth.’ [Rev. 17:5] She is, moreover, said to be ‘drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.’ [Rev. 17:6] The angel-interpreter then proceeds to disclose to the wondering prophet the meaning of the apparition. He identifies the wild beast in this vision with the first beast described in chap. xiii. [13], whose number is six hundred and sixty-six, adding additional particulars to the description, some of them of a very obscure character. The woman, or harlot, he declares to be ‘that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth [the land; Greek: tes ges, Rev. 17:18]. In the next chapter (xviii. [18]) the fall of Babylon the great, or the harlot city, is described in language of great power and beauty. This is followed in chap. xix. [19] by the celebration in heaven of the triumph over Babylon, which gives occasion to introduce by anticipation the approaching nuptials of the Lamb [Rev. 19:7]; after which there is a description of the victory of the divine Champion, whose name is the Word of God [19:13], over ‘the beast, the false prophet, and the kings of the earth.’ [Rev. 19:19-20] In chap. xx. [20] the dragon, the head of the great confederacy against the cause of truth and of God, is bound and shut up in the abyss for a period of a thousand years. The vision then closes in a grand catastrophe, a solemn act of judgment, in which the dead, small and great, stand before God, and are judged according to their works. Such is a rapid sketch of the outlines of this magnificent vision. "The question of greatest importance and difficulty which we have here to deal with is, What city is signified by the woman sitting on the scarlet beast, and designated ‘Babylon the great’? [Rev. 17:5] "By the great majority of interpreters it has been, and is, received as an undoubted and almost self-evident proposition that the Babylon of the Apocalypse is, and can be, no other than Rome, the empress of the world in the days of St. John, and since his time the seat and centre of the most corrupt form of Christianity and the most overshadowing spiritual despotism that the world has ever seen. That there is much to favour this opinion may be inferred from the fact of its general acceptance. It may even be thought to be placed beyond question by the apparent identification of the harlot in the vision, as the ‘city of the seven hills,’ [Rev. 17:9] and ‘the great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth.’ [Rev. 17:18] "It will seem presumptuous as well as hazardous to challenge a decision which has been pronounced by such high authority, and which has ruled so long among Protestant theologians and commentators, and he who ventures to do so enters the lists at a great disadvantage. Nevertheless, in the interests of truth, and with all reverence and loyalty to the teaching of the divine Word, it may not only be permitted, but may even be imperative, to show cause why the popular interpretation of this symbol should be rejected as untenable and untrue. "1. There is an a priori presumption of the strongest kind against Rome being the Babylon of the Apocalypse [Book of Revelation]. The improbability is great with regard even to Rome pagan, but far greater with regard to Rome papal. The very design of the book excludes the possibility of Rome being represented as one of its dramatis personae. The fundamental idea of the Apocalypse, as we have endeavoured to prove, is the approaching Parousia [Second Coming] and the accompanying judgment of the guilty nation [1st-century Israel]. Rome, Heathen or Christian, lies altogether outside the apocalyptic field of view, which is restricted to ‘things which must shortly come to pass.’ [Rev. 1:1] To wander into all ages and countries in the interpretation of these visions is absolutely forbidden by the express and fundamental limitations laid down in the book itself. "2. On the other hand, it is to be expected a priori that great prominence should be given in the Apocalypse to Jerusalem. This is fact, if our view of the design and subject of the book be correct, ought to be the central figure in the picture. If the Apocalypse is only the reproduction and expansion of our Lord’s prophecy on the Mount of Olives [as recorded in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21], which is mainly occupied with the approaching judgment of Israel and of Jerusalem, we may expect to find the same thing in the Apocalypse; and it is as unreasonable to look for Rome in the Apocalypse as it would be to look for it in our Lord’s prophecy on the Mount [of Olives]. "3. It deserves particular attention that in the Apocalypse there are two cities, and only two, that are brought prominently and by name into view by symbolic representation. Each is the antithesis of the other. The one is the embodiment of all that is good and holy, the other the embodiment of all that is evil and accursed. To know either, is to know the other. These two contrasted cities are the new Jerusalem [Rev. 21:2] and Babylon the great [Rev. 17:5]. "There can be no room for doubt as to what is signified by the new Jerusalem: it is the city of God, the heavenly habitation, the inheritance of the saints of light. But what, then, is the proper antithesis to the new Jerusalem? Surely, it can be no other than the old Jerusalem. In fact, this antithesis between the old Jerusalem and the new is drawn out for us so distinctly by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians, that he puts into our hand a key to the interpretation of this symbol in the Apocalypse. The apostle contrasts the Jerusalem ‘which now is’ with the Jerusalem which was to be: the Jerusalem which is in bondage with the Jerusalem which is free: the Jerusalem which is beneath with the Jerusalem which is above (Gal. iv. 25, 26 [Gal. 4:25-26]). We have a similar antithesis in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where ‘the city which hath foundations’ is contrasted with the ‘not-continuing[’] city; the city ‘whose builder is God’ with the city of human creation; ‘the city of the living God,’ or the ‘heavenly Jerusalem,’ with the earthly Jerusalem (Heb. xi. 10, 16 [Heb. 11:10, 16]; xii. 22 [Heb. 12:22]). In like manner we have the antithesis between these two cities distinctly and broadly presented to us in the Apocalypse the one being the harlot [Rev. 17:5], the other the bride, the Lamb’s wife [Rev. 21:9]. ... "The real and proper antithesis, therefore, to the new Jerusalem is the old Jerusalem: and since the city contrasted with the new Jerusalem is also designated Babylon, we conclude that Babylon is the symbolic name of the wicked and doomed city, the old Jerusalem, whose judgment is here predicted. "4. If it be objected that other symbolic names have already been appropriated by the old Jerusalem,---that she is designated ‘Sodom and Egypt,’ [Rev. 11:8]---that is no reason why she may not be also styled Babylon. If she passes under one pseudonym, why not under another, provided it be descriptive of her character? All these names, Sodom, Egypt, Babylon, are alike suggestive of evil and of ungodliness, and proper designations of the wicked city whose doom was to be like theirs. "5. It deserves notice that there is a title which, in the Apocalypse, is applied to one particular city par excellence. It is the title ‘that great city’ ([Greek:] he polis he megale). It is clear that it is always the same city which is so designated, unless another be expressly specified. Now, the city in which the witnesses are slain is expressly called by this title, ‘that great city’ [Rev. 11:8]; and the names Sodom and Egypt are applied to it [Rev. 11:8]; and it is furthermore particularly identified as the city ‘where also our Lord was crucified’ (chap. xi. 8) [Rev. 11:8]. There can be no reasonable doubt that this refers to ancient Jerusalem. If, then, ‘the great city’ of chap. xi. 8 [Rev. 11:8] means ancient Jerusalem, it follows that ‘the great city’ of chap. xiv. 8 [Rev. 14:8], styled also Babylon, and ‘the great city’ of chap. xvi. 19 [Rev. 16:19], must equally signify Jerusalem." [to be continued in part 2] ----- Visit russellparousia.blogspot.com to see all posts