Babylon is called a πόρνη - “Harlot” in the LXX at Isa 47:10, but this seems to be based more on interpretive than textual considerations.
“... there is no evidence that Peter was ever in Babylon, or that there was even a church there during the 1st century. Mark and Silvanus are associated with Peter in the letter and there is no tradition that connects either of them with Babylon. According to Josephus (Ant. xviii.9.5-9), the Jews at this time had largely been driven out of Babylon and were confined to neighboring towns, and it seems improbable that Peter would have made that his missionary field.” (ISBE, “Babylon in the New Testament,” 1:391).
“This epistle ends with greetings from ‘she who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen.’ While this could refer to Peter’s wife, one MS and some authorities read ‘the church which is at Babylon’ (so KJV). This has understandably led to various identifications for this Babylon. Until the Reformation this reference was taken as Rome, it being always assumed that ‘Babylon’ was the place in which the letter was written. Two early cursives add “en Rome” as explanation. There is an ancient tradition that Peter visited Rome, and Mark had been summoned there by Paul (2 Tim 4:11). W. M. Ramsay argues that the epistle is full of Rom. thought (Church in the Roman Empire, 286) and with other internal evidence supporting this theory it is that currently held by the majority of scholars. (D. J. Wiseman, ZPEB, “Babylon, NT,” 1:448).
BAGD, ἔχω, pp. 331-334; Liddell, ἔχω, pp. 749-50.
Some may object to this application of the “Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots.” They may object to a multilayered interpretation being attached to this prophetic figure. Blaising and Bock demonstrate the difficulty of interpreting elements in this passage, especially when their descriptions seem to develop from multiple threads coming from divergent originations.
“Another example of this literal/symbolic difficulty is the debate over the identity of Babylon in Revelation 17. This text shows how multilayered the associations are in an apocalyptic passage and how focusing on only one element may limit its understanding. Should one appeal to Jeremiah 51 and take it literally as Babylon rebuilt, so that the center of the world system in the end will be where Iraq is now? Or is it a cipher for a rebuilt Rome as the reference to the seven hills of Revelation 17:9 suggests? Which context helps us identify what is taking place, the Old or the New? Are the two associations in conflict or can they form a unity? Even dispensationalists have not agreed here.” (Blaising & Bock, pp. 93-94)
If the angelic intention in this passage is to more specifically identify the characteristics and elements operative in that future time, might he not have used prophetic references that highlight different overlapping aspects of this “great harlot, Babylon the Great”? What would restrict the angel from more exactly representing that future by overlaying various elements found in different Old Testament images to more fully depict that future and the dynamics driving those future times? Like an artist uses layers of different colored paint to achieve the look and texture he desires, so the angel in Revelation 17 & 18 chooses evocative passages from the Old Testament that illustrate more exactly the future role and nature of his prophetic image. Must the intention of the angel be restricted to an ‘either/or’ application of his presentation of the future? Can we place such non-textual restrictions upon what we suppose his intention must be?
While the textual allusions serve to better describe the target, we must also remember that not all images and phrases are for the sake of capturing that target’s texture. Identifiers in the text permit the more definite recognition of the target. While the harlot is presented to the reader with allusions containing multiple threads from divergent sources, the harlot is also directly identified in the passage as “the great city” (17:18). Even some elements of the harlot that at first seem allusion-istic are themselves identified later within the text. In 17:1 the harlot is said to sit upon “many waters” which is later given a more concrete identification in 17:15 as “people and multitudes and nations and tongues.” The obvious difficulty is determining which aspects are allusions bringing texture and color to the target, and which elements are intended to represent more. In Revelation, what parsing that is provided in the passage itself seems to appear near the end rather than the beginning of the relevant text.
BAGD, βλασφημέω, pp. 142-3; Liddell, βλασφημέω, pp. 317-18.
“The description [‘was, and is not, and is about to come ...’ - Rev 17:8] is also an intentional antithesis to the One ‘who is and who was and who is to come’ (1:4, 8; 4:8)” (Mounce, p. 312).
From a strictly systematic assignment of the attributes of God, the inability of his being to be affected by the creation may be more recognizable as transcendence. It is important to remember, however, that these attributes are not mutually exclusive. One could describe God’s transcendent relationship to the created order as his separateness from the effects of his creation. This separateness brings in the attribute of holiness. As a being completely separate from all effects, the attribute of immutability begins to introduce itself. When we describe God, we divide our understanding into the manageable categories called attributes. They are helpful and necessary, but they are our attempts to describe his own revelation of himself. Consider, for example, how the continual heavenly cry in Rev 4:8-11 involves the interplay of the holiness, omnipotence, and the eternalness of God in the act of creation and in his involvement with his creation. By incorporating these three aspects of God’s nature in their declaration, the heavenly creatures sufficiently impress upon the reader that God is wholly unlike anything he has made. We might attempt to do the same by articulating all of God’s non-communicable attributes. But since there is overlap in our list of attributes, the use of holiness, omnipotence and eternalness by the heavenly creatures does not incompletely capture God’s non-creatureliness.
In the early 20th century, science took a large step forward in understanding the interlocking nature of space and time. Spacetime is an integral component of the physical order. As such, since God created the physical universe, he also created time. Time, therefore, is a part of the creation. Since God is not bound by his creation, he cannot be bound by time. Further, beyond being unbound by time, God is separate from it. Since God exists separate from time, then he exists where time does not, just as he did when the creation was not. God in this sense is timeless.
However, the Scriptures continually reveal God as interacting in the present time of humanity as time progresses. This implies that God, while timeless, nevertheless can and does involve himself with the created order including beings who are locked into the continual procession of time. God’s eternity then must include 1) that his being is timeless, and 2) that it does not preclude him from partaking fully in the collective progression of time.
“God is also infinite in relation to time. Time does not apply to him. He was before time began. ... God is the one who always is. He was, he is, he will be. ... God is timeless. ... The fact that God is not bound by time does not mean that he is not conscious of the succession of points of time. He knows what is now occurring in human experience. He is aware that events occur in a particular order. Yet he is equally aware of all points of that order simultaneously.” (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, pp. 274-5)
“The word suggests transcendence of the temporal and is employed in various senses. ... Beyond this the term traditionally has been used by theology and philosophy to designate God’s infinity in relation to time - i.e., to designate the divine perfection whereby God transcends temporal limitations of duration and succession and possesses his existence in one indivisible present. ... Biblical theology and philosophy, however, affirmed the unique eternity of God without ruling out the created and conditional reality of the time-space order and its momentous significance. The doctrines of creation, preservation, providence, incarnation, and atonement all involve a strategic role for the world of time and history. ... Finally, the attribute of eternity cannot be disjointed from God’s other attributes. The biblical emphasis on divine omniscience supports the view of his supertemporal eternity. If God’s knowledge is an inference from a succession of ideas in the divine mind, he cannot be omniscient. Divine omniscience implies that God knows all things in a single whole, independent of a temporal succession of ideas.” (Carl F. H. Henry, EDT, “Eternity,” pp. 370-372).
The Present Attributive Participle.
The Imperfect Indicative. The verb εἰμί - “to be” does not exist as a participle in a past tense. So, the imperfect tense is used to indicate the continuous type of action in past time.
“ὃ ἦν indic. supplying for a durative past ptc; the fact that the whole “name” is undeclined after ἀπό adds the impression of immutability to that of eternity.” (Max Zerwick and Mary Grossvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981, p. 742).
Present Passive Deponent Attributive Participle.
“When we leave the realm of the OT and enter that of the NT, two facts stand out. First, God is only seldom described as holy (Jn 17:11; 1 Pet 1:15; Rev 4:8; 6:10) and Christ is only once called holy in the same sense as God (Rev 3:7; cf. 1 Jn 2:20). The concept of holiness in the NT is determined rather by the Holy Spirit, the gift of the new age.” (NIDNTT, ἅγιος, 2:228).
Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4th revised edition, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986, p. 73.
“It should be noted at this point that the ‘name’ of God in Biblical usage is of more significance than the use of the word ‘name’ in our modern language. The name of God is more than merely His name; it is the epitome of His character and of His activity. For this reason, God’s reply to Moses is the more significant. ... The Hebrew words, ΄ehyeh asher ΄ehyeh, might better be translated, ‘I am I who am’; that is, ‘I am the God who exists as a self-conscious, self-determining personal spirit.’ ... But the revelation of God set forth in the third chapter of Exodus does not end with the present tense, ‘I am.’ The record continues. ... ‘This is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations’ (Ex 3:15). God’s name is not only ΄ehyeh, ‘I am,’ but Jahweh, ‘He who continuously is.’ ” (J. Oliver Buswell, Jr., A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962, p. 35)
TDNT, εἰμί, 2:398.
NIDOTTE, היה, 1:1024-25.
“ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος is one of the characteristic solecisms in the Apocalypse, since a genitive construction should follow ἀπὸ ... But it would be a blunder of modern thinking to judge this as a mistake of one who did not know his Greek very well. Here, as often elsewhere, commentators generally acknowledge that the ‘incorrect’ grammar is intentional. ὁ ὢν is probably taken from Exod 3:14, where it occurs twice as an explanation of the divine name Yahweh, and John keeps it in the nominative in order to highlight it as an allusion to Exodus. Furthermore, the full threefold phrase may have become a general title for God in Judaism, and this would have been reason enough for the author to maintain the nominatives.” (G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, The New International Greek Testament Commentary, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999, pp 188-9).
“Grace and peace proceed from a threefold source. First mentioned is the one ‘who is and who was and who is to come.’ This paraphrase of the divine name stems from Exodus 3:14-15 and calls attention to the fact that all time is embraced within God’s eternal presence. ... John paraphrases the divine name in such a way as to remind his readers that God is eternally existent, without beginning or end. Such a reminder would be especially appropriate at a time when the church stood under the shadow of impending persecution. An uncertain future calls for One who by virtue of his eternal existence exercises sovereign control over the course of history.” (Mounce, p. 68).
“Unlike their near neighbors and ethnic cousins, the Arabs, certain sections of whom were intellectually tolerant, inquisitive and assimilative, the Jewish people described themselves as ‘stiff-necked’. Their scholars borrowed little in the way of secular knowledge from the nations to which they were subject at different times - whether Greeks, Romans, Egyptians or Babylonians. ... The ancient Hebrews, like certain other nations, used their alphabet not only for letters but also for numerals - and this dual function was a serious handicap to their progress in arithmetic and algebra. Like other Semitic alphabets, theirs had 22 letters only (no vowels). They used all of them as numerals and added five more (variants of letters which take on a different form at the end of a word). Lacking the concept of place value, and with no sign for zero, Jewish scholars had serious problems with numbers. Addition and subtraction were relatively simple, but multiplication, division and fractions were so difficult with alphabetic numerals as to be almost impossible. ... The rabbis opposed secular science, regarding it as a pagan invention. ... Number and science were neglected, and ignored, to an amazing extent. ... If written calculations were required, Babylonian, Egyptian or Aramaic numerals and counting methods might be used. ... It was a literate society, but (especially in the higher, more abstract area of intellectual reasoning) scarcely numerate. ... There are few Hebrew records of number import until the 9th century A.D., when the Jewish people came under the influence of Arab scientific renaissance.” (John McLeish, Number: The History of Numbers and How They Shape Our Lives, New York: Ballantine Books, 1992, pp. 93-96)
Gabriel’s stated goals for the 70 weeks must be reached before the end of the 70th week, putting the fulfillment in the still distant future. After previewing each of the six achievements that would come at the end of the 70 - 7's, Archer concludes that the text means this expression to equal 490 years. For him, the major interpretational question revolves around the continuity of the 70th week.
“The reason for our detailed discussion of the six goals of v. 24 is that the terminus ad quem of the seventy weeks must be established before the question of the seventieth week can be properly handled. If all six goals were in fact attained by the crucifixion of Christ and the establishment of the early Church seven years after his death, then it might be fair to assume that the entire 490 years of the seventy weeks were to be understood as running consecutively and coming to a close in A.D. 37. But since all or most of the six goals seem to be as yet unfulfilled, it follows that if the seventieth week finds fulfillment at all, it must be identified as the last seven years before Christ’s return to earth as millennial King.” (Gleason Archer, “Daniel,” EBC. 7:113)
Some might suggest that parallelism is at work in this verse, and that this explains how the two components might actually be the same. However, even if Christ’s words may resemble a parallel strophe, such an observation would not really offer support. Any parallelism in the verse finds easier avenues of explanation if the focus reflects general Gentile activity, rather than the same Gentile activity.
Some could think that Christ’s handling of Isa 61:1-2a serves as an example of both near and later fulfillment of Luke 21. Yet these two prophetic situations are quite different. Isa 61:1-2 involves a partial fulfillment, an interval, and the completion of the prophecy. Luke 21 has multiple threads of prophecy moving from events prior to Gentile armies surrounding Jerusalem to Christ’s return in great glory. Specific prophetic statements within the overall prophecy by Christ establish the continuation of Gentile events once started until the end. Thus, unlike Isa 61:1-2, Luke 21 contains prior through final flows of events along with several statements by Christ that once some of these flows of events begin, they must continue until the end. The interruption between the former and later fulfillment in Isa 61:1-2 seems to have more in common with Dan 9:26-27. In both, part of the prophecy is fulfilled, an interval is unexpectedly encountered, and a still future completion of the fulfillment is expected.
Some hold that the motif of “was, is not, and will come” from Rev 17:8a, 8c, & 11 refers to the revival of the Roman Empire and not to the Antichrist. Pentecost is an example.
“The course of this fourth world empire is given in Revelation 17:8. ‘The Beast which thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition.’ ‘Was’ describes the empire in the period of its impotency. ‘Shall ascend out of the abyss’ shows the coming form of the empire. ‘Goes into perdition’ depicts its future destruction.” (Pentecost, Things to Come, p. 324).
Also,
“In Revelation 13:3 and 17:8, the beast is explained as the composite kingdom. The reference to healing seems to indicate the resurgence of power in the Gentile kingdom that had been dead for so long. Satan is called the angel of ‘the bottomless pit’ or ‘abyss’ in 9:11. This means that 17:8 does not teach that the head of the empire arose out of the abyss, but rather that the empire itself was brought about ‘from the abyss’ by Satan.” (J. Dwight Pentecost, Thy Kingdom Come, Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990, p. 307).
See Craig A. Blaising, “The Future of Israel: As a Theological Question,” JETS 44 (2001), pp 435-50.
The extraordinary similarities shared between Rev 17:10 and Dan 7:20 even extend to the choice of verbs which mean “to fall.” The verb in Dan 7:20 (נְפַל) has the same general range of meanings as the verb in Rev 17:10 (πίπτω). Interestingly, the LXX uses πίπτω almost exclusively to translate נְפַל (NIDNTT, πίπτω, 1:608-9). So, the choice of verbs demonstrates a remarkable similarity between Rev 17:10 and Dan 7:20. Given this, it seems reasonable to assume there is a similar idea behind the use of these two verbs meaning “to fall.”
Usually, a word’s potential meaning is narrowed down by its context. In the case of Rev 17:10, that context would seem to include Dan 7:20 and its context. Fortunately, Dan 7:20 is one of three verses in the chapter that describe the same event and these other two are very descriptive (7:8, 23).
The three kings were removed from power in such a way that no return could be expected. The vivid metaphor of “pulled out by the roots” (v. 8) clearly implies a permanent removal. The metaphor itself also
Reads:
2
Pages:
143
Published:
Oct 2024
in 2006, i came across hand written sermons by Reverend Luther Hart. He was the minister of the congregational Church in Plymouth Ct from 1809 to 1834. He wr...
Formats: PDF, Epub, Kindle, TXT
Reads:
1
Pages:
36
Published:
Apr 2024
The author, Shri Pradeep Bhanot , acknowledges that spiritual and transformative journeys are highly personal and diverse. The perspectives shared in this nar...
Formats: PDF, Epub, Kindle, TXT
Reads:
39
Pages:
272
Published:
Mar 2023
Eavesdrop on a debate between a Christian elder and young agnostic as they pore over the first book of the Holy Bible. Genesis: Biblical Commentary Through Di...
Formats: PDF, Epub, Kindle, TXT
Reads:
33
Pages:
168
Published:
Jan 2023
The Spiritual Life of the believer begins like the Human Life of the individual with BIRTH. Human Life begins at physical birth when God imputes to the format...
Formats: PDF, Epub, Kindle, TXT