The Three Angels of Revelation 14:6-12

BABYLON NOT THE CITY OF ROME

As some have strongly advocated the view that Rome is the Babylon of the book of Revelation, we will examine the reasons that are adduced in support of this view. The argument stands thus: The angel told John that the woman which he had seen was the great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth. And that the seven heads of the beast are seven mountains upon which the woman sitteth. This explanation of “the mystery of the woman,” is regarded as decisive testimony that Rome is the Babylon of the book of Revelation. To the foregoing reasons some add the statement that a woman is used in every other instance in the book of Revelation as the symbol of a literal city, and consequently must mean a literal city in this case. But we are compelled to dissent from this view, by the following reasons. TAR 41.1

The grand principle assumed by the foregoing view is this: the interpretation of a symbol must always be literal, and can never consist in the substitution of one symbol for another. Hence the interpretation of the woman as a city, and of the heads of the beast as mountains upon which the woman sitteth, must be literal. That there are exceptions to this rule, and that the case in question furnishes a manifest exception, we will now show. In Revelation 11:3, the two witnesses are introduced. The next verse is an explanation of what is meant by the two witnesses: “These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.” There can be no question that in this case the explanation of the symbol consists in the substitution of other symbols. In other words, the explanation consists in transferring the meaning to other symbols which are elsewhere clearly explained. TAR 41.2

That this is the case in Revelation 17, we will now show. The angel introduces his explanation of the heads by saying, “Here is the mind which hath wisdom;” plainly implying that wisdom was needed in order to understand what he was there communicating. With the fact before us that in Revelation 11 the explanation consists in substituting one symbol for another, and with the caution of the angel as he gives the explanation in this case, let us consider what he utters. TAR 42.1

“The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.” “The woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” Verses 9, 18. The wisdom which is needed to rightly comprehend the words of the angel, would doubtless lead us to compare the different instances in which the same facts are referred to in the book of Revelation. If we do this, the following points will appear. TAR 42.2

1. Chap. 13 informs us that one of these seven heads was wounded unto death, and that this deadly wound was healed. Or, as the same fact is stated again, it had a wound by a sword and did live. Now it would be supreme folly to assert this of a literal mountain. Hence the heads are not mountains of earth. TAR 42.3

2. Each of the seven heads is represented with a crown upon it in Chap. 12, even as each of the ten horns are thus represented in Chap. 13. Each of the heads must therefore represent a kingdom or government, even as the horns represent governments, or else we must understand that each of the seven hills of Rome is represented in this prophecy with a crown upon it! And the lion’s mouth of this beast would be a singular feature indeed, if joined to a mountain of earth! The ten horns upon the head of this beast are not set in mountains of earth. TAR 42.4

3. It is evident that the seven heads are successive (that is, the beast has but one head at a time) in distinction from the ten horns which are cotemporary. But the seven hills of Rome are not successive; for it cannot be said of them, “five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.” The beast itself is the eighth, and is of the seven, which proves that the beast is a literal mountain, or that the heads are not. TAR 43.1

4. The heads of the beast must, according to Daniel 7:6, compared with Daniel 8:8, 22, be explained as kingdoms or governments. Mountains, according to Daniel 2:35, 44; Jeremiah 51:25, denote kingdoms. But the version of Prof. Whiting, which is a literal translation of the text, removes all obscurity from Revelation 17:9, 10. “The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sitteth, and they are seven kings.” Thus it will be seen that the angel represents the heads as mountains, and then explains the mountains to be seven successive kings. Thus we see that the angel transferred the meaning from one symbol to another, and then gave the explanation of the second symbol. TAR 43.2

Having proved that the mountains are not literal, but symbolic, it follows that the woman which sitteth upon them cannot represent a literal city. For a literal city cannot sit upon symbolic mountains. Hence it appears that the angel transfers the meaning from one symbol to another, as in verses 9, 10; Chap 11:4. And it is certain that the woman of Chap. 12, represents the church, and not a literal city. Hence it is a mistaken idea that a woman in the book of Revelation, as a symbol, always represents a literal city. TAR 44.1

Another evidence that the city of Rome is not the Babylon of the Apocalypse, is found in the following important fact. Rome was and is “the seat of the beast;” therefore the city of Rome cannot be the woman seated upon the beast. For Rome cannot be both the seat of the beast and the woman that sits upon the beast. Lest any should deny that Rome is the seat of the beast, we will prove that point from the New Testament. The seat of the beast is the same that had been the seat of the dragon. Revelation 13:2. This dragon is the power that ruled the world at the time of our Saviour’s birth. Revelation 12. Consequently it is imperial Rome. The seat of the imperial power, the throne of the Cæsars, was at Rome in Italy. Luke 2:1; Acts 25:10-12, 21; compared with 16:32; 27:1, 24; 28:14-16. The fact being established that Rome is the seat of the beast, it follows that Rome is not the woman Babylon seated upon that beast. TAR 44.2

The fact that Rome is not the Babylon of the Apocalypse, may also be demonstrated from Revelation 16. The fifth vial is poured out upon the seat of the beast, which we have shown to be Rome. But the great city Babylon does not receive her cup of wrath until the seventh vial is poured out. Verses 10, 11, 17-19. Then Babylon and Rome are not the same. TAR 44.3

Were Babylon a literal city, but few of the people of God at most could be found in it, and but a portion of any class of the wicked. So that almost all of every class of men would in that case be outside of the Babylon of Revelation. But it is very evident that at the time of the cry, “Come out of her my people,” the people of God as a body are in that great city. It is also worthy of notice that if Babylon is a literal city it must be a place of the greatest commercial importance; for in Revelation 18, it is represented as the great center of commerce; and its destruction causes universal mourning among the merchants and sailors of the world. It is certain that Rome is as far from being a commercial city as any one upon the globe. And the destruction of Rome would not in the smallest degree affect commercial business. Nor could the sailors and shipmasters of the earth lament over her, saying, “What city is like unto this great city!” For New York or London is equal to a great number of such as Rome in commercial importance. And indeed there is not a city upon the globe whose destruction would cause all commerce to cease, and all the sailors and merchants of the earth to mourn. These arguments we think demonstrate that Rome is not the Babylon of the Apocalypse. TAR 45.1