Giancarlo Biguzzi, «Is the Babylon of Revelation Rome or Jerusalem?», Vol. 87 (2006) 371-386
The Babylon of Revelation 17–18 has been interpreted as imperial Rome since
antiquity, but some twenty interpreters have rejected such a solution in recent
centuries and have held that Babylon instead should be Jerusalem. This is not a
minor question since it changes the interpretation of the whole book, because Rev
would become all of a sudden an anti-Jewish libel, after having been an anti-
Roman one. This article discusses the pros and cons of the two interpretations and
concludes that the traditional one matches both the details and the plot of the book
much more than any other.
376 G. Biguzzi
A first group of objections is derived from the historical situation:
(1) The alleged anti-Roman attitude of Rev is belied by the pro-
Roman stance of all other political NT statements (Rm 13,1; 1Pt 2,13-
14; 1Tm 2,1-4 etc.)(17). In the case that Rev was an anti-Roman libel,
no historical 1st century event could explain such a change of attitude
towards Rome from the Christian side (18).
(2) The anti-Roman interpretation is based on the alleged anti-
Christian persecution of Domitian and his alleged promotion of the
emperor cult, but the only persecution of Christians in the 1st century
was that unleashed by Nero in the city of Rome alone (19), while the
number of temples dedicated to the imperial cult was no higher under
Domitian than under both his predecessors and successors (20).
A second group of objections is deduced from the titles given to
Babylon in Rev:
(3) Babylon is labelled as “harlotâ€, but only (Israel or) Jerusalem,
who is the bride of Yhwh, can become a harlot, as attested in the
OT (21), not Rome (22).
(4) Babylon is “drunk with the blood of the saints etc.†according
(17) Cf. R. DE WATER, “Reconsidering the Beast from the Sea (Rev. 13,1)â€,
NTS 46 (2000) 246: “Other NT writings do not support the idea of the Roman
empire as the persecutor ‘beast’â€.
(18) SICKENBERGER, “Die Johannesapokalypse und Româ€, 275: “Es musste
(…) ein großer Umschwung in der Stimmung gegen Rom eingetreten sein (…).
Es gibt (…) keine ausreichende Erklärung eines solchen Abscheus vor Româ€.
(19) Cf. DE WATER, “Reconsidering the Beast from the Seaâ€, 250.
(20) Cf. L.L. THOMPSON, The Book of Revelation. Apocalypse and Empire
(New York – Oxford 1990) 104-107: “There is no indication that Domitian
modified the imperial cult by demanding greater divine honors than either his
predecessors or successors†(p. 107); D. WARDEN, “Imperial Persecution and the
Dating of 1 Peter and Revelationâ€, JETS 34 (1991) 207, 208: “There is no
evidence that the emperor worship was promoted with any particular fervor
during the time of Domitianâ€, “There is no indication that Domitian himself
affected the practice of ruler worship in Asia to any significant degreeâ€; DE
WATER, “Reconsidering the Beast from the Seaâ€, 246: “There is no evidence that
social pressure imposed by Domitian’s imperial cult was any greater than in the
period preceding himâ€.
(21) Five texts refer to Jerusalem or Israel using the image of the “harlotâ€: Hos
2,5; Is 1,21; Jer 2,20; Mic 1,7; Ez 16 and 23. Yet Is 23,15-17 and Nah 3,4 call the
cities of Tyre and Niniveh “harlotâ€.
(22) MASSYNGBERDE FORD, Revelation, 285: “If it is the covenant relationship
with Yahweh which makes Israel his special people, his bride, how could a non-
Israelite nation be called “harlot†except in a much less precise sense? It is the
covenant which makes the bride, the breaking of it which makes the adulteressâ€.
FOLLOW US