The mark of the Beast

I. The Fall of Babylon

Debates between amils and dispensationalists generally center on Rev 20. However, a neglected passage is Rev 18 (and related verses). The fall of Babylon poses a prima facie problem for dispensationalism. Let’s begin with a brief statement of the problem, then delve into the details.

In the literary sequence of Revelation, the fall of Babylon abuts the return of Christ. And dispensationalists believe the literary sequence of Rev 5-22 generally tracks a chronological sequence. That distinguishes dispensationalism from the recapitulatory scheme favored by amil interpreters like Beale.

So on that view, the fall of Babylon ushers in the premillennial return of Christ. That’s the next event in the queue.

But what does “Babylon” stand for? Most scholars regard “Babylon” as a cipher for Rome. Assuming that identification is correct (see below), when would the predicted downfall of “Babylon” (aka Rome) take place? Wouldn’t that select for the fall of Rome in 5C AD or thereabouts? But if the return of Christ is the next event in the queue, how do we account for the tremendous ellipsis between the past fall of Rome and the future return of Christ? 

II. Classical Dispensationalism

Lets first consider how a classical dispensationalist deals with this issue.

Robert Thomas says use of “Babylon” as code language for Rome comes from 2C AD sources. Cf. Revelation 8-22, 289; Four Views on the Book of Revelation, 201.

That’s true as far as it goes, but it seriously understates the evidence for the Roman identification:

i) To begin with, if John were referring to Rome, we wouldn’t expect him to name Rome in this pejorative context, for that would be seditious. If Christians in Asia Minor were already liable to persecution from the Roman authorities, naming Rome as the culprit would either provoke the authorities or exacerbate the situation. So if John were referring to Rome, we’d expect him to disguise the reference. I’m reminded of Dryden’s political allegories (Absalom and Achitophel; The Hind and the Panther).

ii) In addition, the argument for the Roman identification is hardly confined to the use of the word “Babylon” as a cipher for Rome. Rather, there’s a general argument for the Roman setting of Revelation, with special reference to the imperial cult. Cf. D. Aune, “The Influence of Roman Imperial Court Ceremonial on the Apocalypse of John,” Apocalypticism, Prophecy, and Magic in Early Christianity (Baker 2008), chap. 6; Revelation 6-16  (Thomas Nelson 1998); Revelation 17-22 (Thomas Nelson 1998); R. Bauckham, “Nero and the Beast,” The Climax of Prophecy (T&T Clark 2000), chap. 11; C. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches (Eerdmans 2000), Introduction; C. Keener, The NIV Application Commentary: Revelation (Zondervan 2000); “Revelation,” The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (IVP 1994); L. Thompson, “Historical Setting and Genre,” “Christians in the Province of Asia,” The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire (Oxford 1990), chapters 2 & 7.

These aren’t just run-of-the-mill Bible commentators, but scholars who conduct independent research into the primary sources. Of course, scholarly opinion is not the final word. We have to assess the evidence they adduce. But that’s what Thomas fails to do.

Thomas says the location of Babylon on the banks of the Euphrates favors a literal identification. E.g. Four Views, 202. But that’s problematic on several grounds:

i) The Euphrates is part of the Babylonian imagery. If John were using “Babylon” metaphorically, we’d expect him to include that familiar landmark. That’s not independent corroboration for the literal identification; rather, that’s part of the picturesque package.

ii) Rome is also located on the banks of a river–the Tiber.

iii) When John refers to a city on “seven hills” (17:9), Thomas says that “probably does have a nonliteral meaning,” Revelation 8-22, 289. So he’s arbitrary in his handling of topographical references. He takes the Babylonian landmark literally, but the Roman landmark figuratively.

Commenting on Rev 17:18, he says, “the historical dissolution of the Roman Empire does not match the description of the city’s destruction just given in vv16-17” (306).

But this disregards the fact that John is using staple poetic imagery.

Commenting on 18:11, Thomas says “John drew the list from items know in his day, not from the future time depicted in the prophecy” (330).

But that departs from the literal fulfillment of prophecy. That vacates the “plain sense” or “face value” meaning of the passage. If a dispensationalist (indeed, a classical dispensationalist) can take that approach to John’s language, why can’t an amillennialist do the same thing?

Commenting on 18:11, Thomas says, “It is a matter of disagreement as to whether the list better suits the city of Rome or Asia Minor where John wrote the Apocalypse” (30-31).

That’s a false dichotomy inasmuch as John is dealing with the Roman Empire, and not any particular municipality or province thereof. 

Commenting on 18:11, Thomas says: “This recalls the situation with ancient Tyre (Ezk 27:25-31)…Yet this list also has a timeless quality as evidenced by the large number of the items in this list that also appear in OT descriptions, particularly of Tyre” (331).

Several problems:

i) Thomas suddenly abandons the “literal” interpretation for the idealist school of hermeneutics. As he himself said earlier: “The timeless-symbolic or idealist position has the Apocalypse representing the eternal conflict of good and evil in every age…The book does not refer to specific events, but expresses the basic principles according to which God acts throughout history,” Revelation 1-7, 31.

ii) The reason that John alludes to Tyre and Babylon is because he’s drawing type/token parallels. Both Babylon and Rome were pagan superpowers. Both Babylon and Rome subjugated Israel. Both Babylon and Rome razed the temple. Both Babylon and Rome exiled the Jews. Both Babylon and Rome fell, as divine punishment. The players change, but the play remains the same. You can substitute different adversaries, for they share a common target: the people of God.

That’s consistent with the modified idealism of amil interpreters like Poythress and Beale.

iii) Although John evokes the oracle of doom against Tyre, he updates the catalogue to correlate items with the Roman economic system. Cf. Aune, Revelation 17-22, 961-1012; Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, chap 10.

III. Progressive Dispensationalism

So how do progressives address the issue?

Should we simply substitute things like helicopters and modern weapons for the imagery of locusts, scorpions, and other such images in Revelation 9:3?…Should we assume the prophet saw something like a motion picture of the future in his vision and then attempted to explain it in terms of images he understood? Or did he see a picture precisely in the images he gives…? Which description of those options is “more literal”? Is it the one that focuses on how it might look to us, so we explain what he meant in words and images very different from the prophet’s terms and images? Or should one focus on how it looked to the prophet and how it appears in the ancient text?

Another example of this literal/symbolic difficult is the debate over the identity of Babylon in Revelation 17….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 seven hills of Revelation 179 suggests. Which context helps us identify what is taking place, the Old or the New?…Even dispensationalists have not agreed here. Perhaps ultimately a choice between the two contexts is not necessary.

We would suggest that this image refers to the sweep of history. The beast depicts each worldwide dynasty of biblical times: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece are the five fallen kings. The sixth, Rome, is “the one that is,” thus honoring the allusion to the hills in Revelation 17:9.

Those who associate the image with Babylon are right in that it is the greatest OT picture of such a power. That is why the beast is called Babylon. Those who associate it with Rome are right because Rome was the current manifestation of that beast in the time of John the writer…Yet the beast is more than either national identification…given the shifting nature of the location of the eras represented by the beast. The text is both specific and indefinite at the same time.

D. Bock & C. Blaising, Progressive Dispensationalism (Baker 2000), 91, 93-95.

The essence of typology is that it creates a “representative” description of reality that may reappear in a fresh form at a later date. Such representation then gives the possibility that what is portrayed in one time period as taking place may “reappear” in the same general form in another time period, so that two events can share identification.

Could it be that the image of the beast is first-century Rome at one level or at least includes it in some way, since it was the evil world empire opposing the saints at the time of John’s writing, and yet it is also genealogically and typologically related to the world power of the end, which Jesus will ultimately judge one day in the future? Could not images like Babylon and the beast represent similar kinds of connections, so that the struggle of history current in John’s time is a type of cipher and precursor for the ultimate future struggle?

D. Bock, “Summary Essay,” Four Views, 294-95.

This approach avoids the erratic inconsistencies that beset Robert Thomas. But its flexibility comes at a cost for dispensationalism. For it’s hard to draw a clear line between the progressive dispensational interpretation of Revelation and the modified idealism of amillennial futurists like Poythress and Beale.

Although the approach taken by Bock and Blaising is consistent with a dispensational plotline, it falls short of selecting for or singling out that particular plotline. For on this view, both progressive dispensationalists and amillennial futurists believe the conflict depicted in Revelation is periodically exemplified throughout church history. Likewise, both groups believe there will be a climatic conflict and resolution at the end of the church age. That this will come to a head, and be conclusively resolved, with the return of Christ.