Babylon the Great in Revelation Is Not Rome

Why the Great Whore of Revelation 17–18 Represents Another Ancient City

If one were to make a list of things regarded as “settled science” or consensus interpretation in biblical studies, the identification of “Babylon the Great” in Revelation 17–18 with Rome would be near the top of the list. I once held the same view. In fact, I grew up in a context in which these chapters were often understood as not only referring to Rome but to the Roman Catholic Church, which was interpreted as such by Luther, Calvin, John Knox, and (importantly for Christianity in the USA) in the Scofield Reference Bible.

A woodcut from the Luther Bible showing Babylon the Great wearing the papal tiara

Babylon the Great as Rome?

There are good reasons for this identification. Chief among them:

(1) The woman is identified as a city seated on seven hills; Rome was (and is) famously “the city on seven hills,” with contemporary iconography displaying Roma (the goddess of the city) seated on those seven hills.

(2) She is a persecutor, “drunk with the blood of the holy ones and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus.” This has typically been associated with Roman persecutions of Christians.

(3) She is a prosperous city featuring multitudes of different peoples and languages specifically labeled “the great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.” Which could this be in the first century Mediterranean context other than Rome?

(4) Externally, some later Jewish works (e.g., 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, the Sibyllene Oracles) identify Rome as “Babylon,” identifying the imperial destroyer of the city and the Second Temple with the empire that destroyed the city and its temple in 586 BCE. Similarly, 1 Peter 5:13 situates its author in “Babylon,” which has been interpreted as a coded reference to Rome since at least Eusebius of Caesarea. (I’m not entirely persuaded by this, either, as our reading of Revelation may impact how we read 1 Peter.)

It just so happens that this identification is wrong. Babylon the Great does not represent Rome in Revelation, it represents Jerusalem.¹

Reasons for Identifying Babylon the Great with Jerusalem

The Beast Is Rome

The first problem with identifying the woman riding the beast with Rome is that the beast itself is identified with Rome and its rulers within the vision. This beast is first introduced in Rev 13, where it is described as a combination of the first three beasts of Daniel 7, having characteristics of a leopard, lion, and bear, with seven heads being the sum total of the heads of those beasts from Daniel. Effectively, this imperial monster is the combination of all of the previous hybrid beasts (=empires) from the past. Rome is therefore depicted in the imagery most familiar for gentile empires in Jewish apocalyptic texts: a hybrid monster-beast.

The angel explains that the beast’s heads “are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, and one has not yet come” (17:10). Given that the beast is a combination of prior empires, it’s possible that those “seven kings” may refer not to Roman emperors (as is often argued) but rather metonymically to kingdoms (e.g., Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Alexander, Seleucid Syria, Ptolemaic Egypt, Rome). In any case, the identification of this beast with political power and imperial rule is especially strong, and the “seven hills” of its heads work well with the Roman identification.

The problem: if the beast represents Rome, how does the woman also represent Rome? Is the image depicting Rome riding Rome? There are a few potential workarounds here, such as the beast representing emperors/the empire, while the woman represents the city of Rome itself, benefiting from the imperial war machine. But I’m not persuaded that this makes the best sense, especially given the next point.

We’ve Already Met this Woman

While it’s universally acknowledged that the beast of Rev 17–18 is the same one introduced in chapter 13, it is rarely recognized that the woman herself is not a new character. Instead, we previously met her in chapter 12:

A great sign appeared in the sky [or heaven]: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars, and she was pregnant and she cried out, being in labor pains and giving birth. … And she gave birth to a son, a male, who is about to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to his throne. Then the woman fled into the wilderness where she had a place prepared by God, so that there she would be nourished for 1,260 days. (12:1–2, 5–6)

This woman—depicted with the imagery of Israel—and her son are opposed by the dragon, a heavenly figure who is called “that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and the satan, who deceives the whole world” (12:9), who is thrown down from heaven, whereupon:

When the dragon saw that he was thrown down to the earth, he pursued/persecuted the woman who had given birth to the male child. But the woman was given the two wings of a giant eagle so that she could fly out into the wilderness, to the place God prepared for her, where she is taken care of away from the presence of the serpent, for a time, times, and half a time. And the serpent poured water like a river from his mouth after the woman trying to sweep her away by a flood. But the earth/land helped the woman and opened its mouth to swallow the river the dragon had hurled out of his mouth. And the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war with the rest of her children, who keep the commands of God and hold to the witness of Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the seashore. And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads. (Rev 12:13–13:1a)

This episode begins the new narrative cycle completed in Revelation 21. The primary characters of this narrative are the woman, the dragon, and the two beasts. This cycle in chapters 12–13, 17–21 is intercalated with the material of 14–16, which look at the events happening concurrently in heaven as these four characters are active on the earth (now that the dragon has been cast down).

The key to understanding this whole sequence is recognizing the final location of the woman of Rev 12: the wilderness. Twice in Rev 12, we are told that the woman flees to the wilderness for safety, and the dragon cannot touch her. Then the dragon raises up the beast and the false prophet (beast #2) to accomplish what he could not.

The very next time we visit the wilderness, we see a woman just as we would expect. Only this time, she’s radically changed and riding the very beast raised up by the dragon when he could not touch her himself, drunk with the blood of those who follow the child to whom she gave birth.

This is why John is “astonished” (θαυμάζω) when he sees her (Rev 17:6).² This is an unexpected and tragic turn indeed!

The basic narrative framework goes like this:

Woman gives birth to a male child —>
Dragon tries to consume child —>
Man (child) enthroned in heaven —>
Dragon thrown to earth —>
Enraged dragon pursues the woman —>
Woman flees to wilderness for protection —>
Dragon raises up beast from the sea —>
Dragon raises second beast from the earth to support first beast

Heavenly interlude: 144,000 sealed (take note of its positioning; we’ll discuss that significance in a moment), the seven bowls of God’s wrath

Return to wilderness —>
Woman riding the first beast! —>
Beast turns on the woman, consumes her, and burns her with fire —>
Rider on a white horse (=the male child) returns, avenging himself on the beast and false prophet —>
The dragon defeated and thrown into the abyss —>
Judgment —>
Dragon released —>
Final defeat of the Dragon, the lake of fire, final judgment —>
New heavens, new earth —>
The Bride, the wife of the Lamb, the true Woman is revealed coming down from heaven

Essentially, the beast is able to accomplish what the dragon could not: the woman could not be touched by direct opposition, but she could be deceived into getting into bed with the beast. Here we should be hearing echoes of Balaam in the Torah—although he could not curse Israel directly (Num 22–24), he could tell Balak how to bring a curse on Israel by women enticing Israelites to commit idolatry (Num 31:16).

It’s amazing to me that so many people have missed this because Revelation isn’t even especially subtle about this identification. This woman is identified with the heavenly woman on the one hand, but on the other hand, she ultimately sells out as a prostitute.

There is significant biblical precedent for this progression and for the portrayal of Jerusalem as a prostitute. For example, in Isaiah 37:22, Jerusalem is “the virgin daughter of Zion” who mocks the Assyrian invaders. But Jerusalem then sells out to Babylon and is no longer virginal by Isaiah 40, by which time she has also “received double from YHWH’s hand” (40:2)—more on this below.

Contrasts with the Heavenly Bride: Two Jerusalems

This is why Babylon the Great so clearly contrasts with the Bride of Rev 21. Here we are given an apocalyptic visionary version of what Paul does in Galatians 4:25–26, when he distinguishes between “the present Jerusalem, who is enslaved with her children,” and “the Jerusalem above” who “is free and is our mother.” (Gal 4:25–26).

The parallels between Babylon and the Bride make significantly less sense if they are between Rome and the church.

The Great City

We’re also told in Rev 17:18 that “the woman you saw is the great city, which rules over the kings of the earth.”

We’ve already seen that exact phrase earlier in the book, in Rev 11:8, “Their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was also crucified.” This verse clearly identifies Jerusalem with Sodom and Egypt while also labeling it “the great city,” which hyperlinks this identification with that of Rev 17:18.

Bloodguilt for Persecuting the Holy Ones

Revelation also says that Babylon is guilty of the blood of the saints and witnesses of Jesus (17:6). On the one hand, Rome did engage in some sporadic persecution of Christians in the first century and eventually grew to have a much greater reputation as a persecutor.

But our earlier material assigns significantly more bloodguilt to the leaders in Jerusalem, as perhaps best witnessed by the difficult reference in 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16 (common translations of which often contain an inexcusably antisemitic comma):

For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus because you suffered the same things from your own countrymen just as they did from the Jews who³ both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God but hostile to all people, hindering us from speaking to the nations so that they may be saved. As a result, they always reach the limit of their sins, but wrath has come upon them to the end.

This is also the accusation Jesus himself makes against the leaders in Jerusalem:

On you will fall the righteous blood shed on earth [or “the Land”] from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. … Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who have been sent to her! (Matt 23:36–37a)

Revelation as a whole interacts a great deal with Jesus’ prophecies about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Mark 13, Matt 24, Luke 21). The four horsemen in Rev 6, for example, map perfectly onto the things Jesus labels as “beginnings of birth pangs” in Matt 24:5–9 (I think Revelation tends to be closer to Matthew than to Mark or Luke on such intertextual commonalities, FWIW). It therefore makes sense that Revelation’s focus on the woman here would again develop Jesus’ own declarations against Jerusalem.

Here it is imperative to remember that criticisms of Jerusalem and its leadership did not amount to criticism of “the Jews” or Judaism itself. When Americans criticize Washington, DC, that does not make them less American (given the ethos of the USA, it might be the reverse). Similarly, prophetic critiques of leadership are consistent throughout scripture and Jewish history as a whole.

Double for Her Sins

Along with the connection to Rev 12, this one is maybe the most persuasive to me: Babylon the Great also gets the distinction of being judged double for her sins: “Pay her back even as she has paid, and give back to her double according to her works, in the cup she has mixed, mix double for her” (Rev 18:6).

Elsewhere in the biblical tradition, this is a distinction in judgment reserved specifically for Jerusalem and the people of God:

Isa 40:2, “Speak kindly to Jerusalem, and call out to her that her warfare has ended, that her guilt has been removed, that she has received double for her sins from YHWH’s hand.”

Jer 16:18: “I will first repay them double for their wrongdoing and their sin, because they have defiled my land and have filled my inheritance with the carcasses of their abominable idols and abominations.”

Why double for their sins? Because unlike other nations, when YHWH’s people serve others, they have committed a double sin:

Has a nation changed gods when they were not gods? But my people have exchanged their glory for that which is of no benefit Be appalled at this, you heavens, and shudder, be very desolate, declares YHWH. For my people have committed two evils: (1) They have abandoned me, the fountain of living waters, (2) to carve out for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns that do not hold water. (Jer 2:11–13)

The fact that the prostitute is judged double for her sins—a judgment that is never applied to the nations/gentiles or empires in any early Jewish literature of which I’m aware—is a telltale sign that she is guilty of this double sin and should therefore be identified with those from inside the covenant, not the nations.

The Sealing of the 144,000 and the Destruction of Jerusalem

Something else that I haven’t seen mentioned (partly because it seems so few people realize that the woman from Rev 12 is the same one as Rev 17) is that the placement of the sealing of the 144,000 echoes the sealing of the faithful in Jerusalem before its destruction in Ezekiel 9:3–5.

And YHWH called to the man clothed in linen at whose waist was a writing kit, and YHWH said to him, “Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the people who groan and sigh over all the abominations which are being committed in its midst.” But to the others he said in my presence, “Go through the city after him and strike; do not let your eye have pity and do not spare.”

That the 144,000 are sealed before the destruction of the woman in Rev 17 is a strong point of connection to the prior judgment of Jerusalem in the time of the first temple.

The Mark of the Beast on Her Forehead

This one is a little more speculative, but I think this reading also helps better explain the writing on her forehead: it is a version of the mark of the beast (Rev 13:16–19) that is written on her forehead. Rather than bearing YHWH’s name (as on the high priest’s headpiece and as Israel as a whole was to do), she is marked with the name of the one who has purchased her.

She has taken on the name of the beast rather than taking the name of YHWH. Through her adultery, she has become his property and is branded with the beast’s name. By getting in bed with earthly power (Rome), the holy city has become identified with Babylon.

“Come Out of Her, My People” and Jesus’ Warnings to Flee Jerusalem

The appeal to “come out of her, my people” (18:4) alludes not only to Isa 52:11 and Jer 51:6 but also to Jesus’ warnings about the abomination of desolation and instructions to flee from Jerusalem and Judaea before its destruction at the hands of the Roman invaders (Luke 21:21–22; Mark 13:14–16; Matt 24:15–18).

The Beast Consuming the Woman = Rome’s Destruction of Jerusalem

That brings up yet another smoking gun: the ten horns and the beast “will hate the whore and make her desolate and naked and eat her with flesh and will burn her up with fire” (Rev 17:16). If the woman is understood as Rome itself, this verse is puzzling. Is Revelation suggesting that the Roman empire will hate the city of Rome and destroy it? What exactly is the mechanism for Rome’s destruction in this reading?

But if the woman is understood as Jerusalem, this verse is perfectly straightforward, referring to Rome finally turning on Jerusalem and sacking and burning the city (which happened in 70 CE), the leaders of which had previously been in bed with Rome.

But What About Being Seated on Seven Hills?

Perhaps the strongest counter-argument comes from 17:9, “the seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits.” Since Rome was and is famously the city on seven hills, how could the woman not be Rome? The answer is that Jerusalem is riding on Rome—by getting into bed with the Roman Empire, Jerusalem is now seated on Rome itself.

The criticism of the Jerusalem establishment being in bed with Rome is something we know characterized the earliest Jesus movement, and it was a criticism that also appears in other early Jewish sources of this time period (e.g., Pss. Sol. 17; the Dead Sea sect).

Takeaways: The Message of Revelation

One of the most common reactions I’ve gotten when discussing this with other scholars over the years has been angst that this reading “doesn’t preach as well.” So many theological treatments of Revelation over the past generation or so have read Revelation as anti-empire, often using the woman’s identification with Rome as a call for Christians to “come out of” participation in modern imperial structures and systems.

I concede that this reading eliminates that particular move, but I submit that it actually results in a more fruitful modern application: Jerusalem’s great sin is getting in bed with earthly power and joining forces with the beast. By analogy, it represents when the people of God get into bed with the powers of this world and ride on the beast of political power. When the church gets in bed with secular, worldly power, she winds up drinking the blood of the saints.

And this compromise never results in real power gained for those who make it. Instead, it always results with the religious serving the interests of secular powers. Had Jesus bowed the knee to Satan, he would not have gained the kingdoms of the world in the end.

Finally, here’s a recent interview I gave on this topic with Rob Dalrymple (there was a near-apocalyptic level storm raging outside that impacted our connection a few times, but on the whole it was a good chat):

1. I’ve planned to write an academic article on this subject for about two decades, but my focus on other higher-priority projects has stood in the way. I’m also presently in a situation where the incentives are presently all aligned against me focusing on producing academic journal articles. As an adjunct professor, I get no professional benefit from publishing a journal article or book with an academic press, and it’s not like another academic publication will get me an interview for a tenure-track job at this point—something I haven’t managed since 2018. In general, fewer people read journal articles as well. So my focus right now is on producing things in a more popular-oriented form (like this Substack!) that more people are likely to read and consume. Nevertheless, I’ll still probably look to get one done on this subject within the next few years as time allows. Until then, this preview will have to do.

I’ve also recently been alerted to some movement toward understanding Babylon as Jerusalem in scholarship over the last few years, chiefly among Italian scholars. But I must confess my general ignorance of recent scholarship on this material to date, as is usually the case until I’m well into my writing process since I prefer to work with the primary materials myself until I’m pretty certain of my reading, only turning to secondary work as conversation partners after that. So I’m not sure which arguments I’m putting forward here have already been put forward by others and when. Nothing is new under the sun, after all.

2. That word “astonished” (θαυμάζω) appears four times in Revelation, each time in response to the beast: (13:3, 17:6, 17:7, 17:8).

3. Many translations inexcusably add a comma between “Jews” and “who” here, reading the following phrase as an appositive describing “the Jews” more generally rather than as a descriptive clause specifying which Jews he was talking about. Grammatically, it is best read as a descriptive clause, and in terms of basic interpretation, the appositive reading makes no sense at all since Jesus and the others persecuted by that specific subgroup were also Jews.