Ewing - 6-Chapter 05 - Conclusion�
Chapter 05 - Conclusion
CHAPTER 5:
CONCLUSION
Having now examined the particulars of the evidence for Jerusalem as the harlot, we are in a position to take a step back and consider the overarching synthesis of these issues. We have surveyed the major proposals that have been offered for the identity of the woman of Rev 17–18, and we have weighed the evidence regarding the date of the book and its relevance to our investigation. We can now review the discussion integratively. As we have seen, there are a number of competing theories as to the identification of Babylon in the Apocalypse, the most dominant being ancient Rome. Each of the theories has its own strengths and weaknesses, and none perhaps can be dismissed outright as baseless. The respective cases for each must therefore be evaluated on their own merits. The question is not whether any given view can be made to fit the requirements of the passage, but rather which, if any, view seems to best fit the most evidence to such an extent that it is to be preferred over other options. The thesis of this study is that the proposal that Jerusalem stands behind the Babylon image does in fact adequately satisfy these criteria so as to be regarded as the most plausible solution. While there is much to commend in other views, the points of contact with Jerusalem in the passage are remarkably prevalent and consistent, and seem to cumulatively reveal that John does have the holy city in mind.
Objections have been raised to this interpretation, the chief of which is the date of Revelation. However, as we have seen, the arguments for the late date of
Revelation from the church fathers and Domitianic persecution are open to serious critique, and the argument from the late usage of the “Babylon” metaphor rests on the Rome interpretation of the harlot, which cannot simply be assumed. Moreover, we have observed that there are several strong arguments favoring a pre-70 date, which was the dominant position in the nineteenth century and is presently seeing a resurgence among certain critical scholars. The secondary objections such as the difficulties of the exalted language given to Babylon and the imagery of the “seven hills/mountains” can be reasonably answered and do not preclude the identification of Jerusalem with the harlot. The crucial question remains whether or not there is sufficient warrant to decide in favor of this interpretation. In response to this question, we must consider the paradigm that emerges from the evidence as an amalgamated whole. In this regard, the scenario we have constructed looks something like this: John, perhaps influenced by Jesus’ reuse of Old Testament anti-Babylon prophecies in the Olivet Discourse against Jerusalem, fleshes out the same metaphor in Revelation. He does so by describing his “Babylon” with Old Testament “harlotry” imagery that almost always speaks of Israel. He arrays her in the colors and jewels of the high priesthood, identifying her position in the world, and condemns her not only for her covenant unfaithfulness, but also for her blood-guilt in the deaths of all the martyrs and prophets in history, all but quoting what Christ had pronounced with explicit reference to the wicked generation of unbelieving Jews that eventually killed Him.
John then portrays her as being violently desolated by Rome (again, using destruction of Jerusalem language from the Old Testament) as a vindication of the faith of the “true Jews” (cf. 2:9; 3:9). From there a lament song ensues, taken largely from a prophetic dirge for Tyre, but realigned to more aptly apply to Jerusalem. Thus, fallen is “the great city,” the special title used repeatedly for Babylon in chapters 17–18, but which is explicitly identified in 11:8 as Israel’s capital. And, finally, the despicable harlot is done away with in order to make way for Christ’s true bride, which John calls the New Jerusalem. When examined in its totality, the evidence seems quite compelling. Other options may be possible or applicable, but it appears to me that Jerusalem is the primary subject in the passage. John seems to be quite methodical in letting the reader in on his disturbing secret. The vision was not meant to confound, but to indict, and I think that the evidence above does exactly that.
Moreover, this conclusion carries notable implications for several issues. First and foremost is the issue of the date. If this identification of the harlot is accurate, we must take very seriously what seems to be a strong piece of internal evidence that the events of A.D. 70 are being prophesied, and thus are yet to come from John’s perspective. Would Irenaeus’ controversial quote really be weightier than this? Also, the general themes and theology of the book may be worthy of reexamination. If the destruction of Jerusalem is truly a climactic theme in the Apocalypse, then perhaps many passages deserve a rereading from this perspective.
Certainly, a number of areas remain that merit further study. The reapplication of forms such as lament songs and the Babylonian connotations of the Olivet Discourse come to mind. And of course the date question awaits definitive resolution. Also, the phenomenon of recapitulation in prophetic fulfillment affects our conception of the scope of this passage, and is worth pursuing in more detail as part of the larger ongoing discussion over apocalyptic. Hopefully forthcoming contributions by more capable students of the book will elucidate some of these matters in the future.
Overall, I think the case for Jerusalem as the harlot of the Apocalypse is a strong one. The reader may judge for him/herself whether the arguments that have been offered are enough to convince. Moreover, perhaps further evidence may yet come to light undermining this view. But at this point, my strong inclination is that it is in fact John’s intention to convey to the reader of Revelation the apostasy of the unbelief of the Jewish leadership, and that we should therefore recognize that the primary referent of the adulterous woman in Rev 17 and 18 is the city of Jerusalem, “which is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt” … andBabylon.