Expert: Cooper P. Abrams III - 1/4/2012

Question
There are some who will say that modern Babylon is Rome, others believe it's the United States while some think it's some religious system.  I even heard Reverend Ted Pike claim that Jerusalem is Babylon.  The Bible states in Jeremiah 50:12 "Your mother shall be sore confounded; she that bare you shall be ashamed: behold, the hindermost of the nations shall be a wilderness, a dry land, and a desert."  Could it be possible, the United States is the hindermost nation?  What are your views on Babylon the great harlot?

Answer
John,
  
    The word "BABYLON" means "confusion." Capitol of Babylonia located by the Euphrates river, also called Shinar and Chaldea. Babylon was first built by Nimrod after the great flood of Noah's day (Ge. 10:10). The Tower of Babel was built there (compare Ge. 11:2,9). Thus, the city of Babylon has always been associated with evil and rebellion against God. God used the nation of Babylon to judge Israel in the days of the kings. Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, carried the Jews away captive and destroyed the walls and temple of Jerusalem (2 Ki. 24-25; 2 Ch. 36; Je. 52). After the seventy-year captivity of the Jews, God destroyed Babylon (Je. 50-52; Is. 13:17-22; Da. 5).

"Isaiah chapter 13 gives us a preview of the destruction of Babylon. God used the Medes to destroy Babylon. However, the Medes were likely not conscious of fulfilling the purpose of God, but were acting for their own selfish purposes.(compare Isaiah 10:5-7). In Isaiah 13 we have a general rendezvous of the forces that were to be employed against Babylon; the deadly, bloody work that the forces would do in Babylon; and the utter ruin and desolation of Babylon. The Median and Persian soldiers were set apart by God for the destruction of Babylon, and were designated to fulfill God's holy purpose. The sins of Babylon were arrogancy, cruelty, false worship, and persecution of the people of God. In vain will one try to bribe them to spare his life (v.17). According to ancient historians Cyrus diverted the waters of the Euphrates, entered the city by the old river bed at night, and suddenly surprised the Babylonians. The great havoc and destruction made by the Medes and Persians ended in the destruction of the city.

"Isaiah continued his prophecy concerning Babylon (Isaiah 21:1-10), assuring the Jews who would be captives in Babylon that their enemy would be destroyed. Isaiah did not narrate the event, but graphically supposed himself a watchman in Babylon, beholding the events as they would come to pass. The treacherous dealer dealeth treacherously--referring to the military stratagem employed by Cyrus in taking Babylon. Babylon had used treachery; she was to be repaid in kind. Go up--as if God were giving orders to the Persians, the instruments of His vengeance. The night of my pleasure--likely referring to the feast of Belshazzar on the night that Babylon was about to be taken (compare Daniel 5), when Cyrus changed the course of the river that he and his army could enter Babylon by the channel of the river and gain control of the great city.

"Jeremiah gave a prophetic insight to the destruction of Babylon (Jeremiah 25:12-14). After using Babylon to chasten His people (v. 9), God decreed the destruction of Babylon because of their iniquity. God makes even unbelievers to unconsciously fulfill His designs (Isaiah 10:6-7). The Chaldeans, who heretofore had enslaved other nations, would themselves become slaves. Jeremiah continued (27:7) and showed that the unjust and barbarous nation should see the destined day of its calamity.

"Jeremiah (chs. 50,51) gives a lengthy prophecy of Babylon's coming downfall. After the predictions of the judgment to be inflicted on other nations by Babylon, follows this one against Babylon itself. This prophecy was evidently given to console the Jews in exile, or about to go into exile, and to vindicate God's ways by exhibiting the doom of Babylon, after her long prosperity. This prophecy shows the faithfulness of the prophet: though under obligation to the king of Babylon, he owed a higher obligation to God, who directed him to prophesy against Babylon.

"The prophet Daniel continued the prophecies concerning Babylon. God gave Nebuchadnezzar a vision of the existent and coming world empires (Daniel 2:31-35). God also gave Daniel the knowledge to interpret the king's dream. Daniel informed the king that Babylon would be supplanted by another kingdom (2:39). The writing on the wall (5:5-8), as interpreted by Daniel (5:25-28), was a message announcing judgment on King Belshazzar and on the nation. The kingdom was in process of being given to the Medes and Persians. 'In that night was Belshazzar slain. And Darius and Median took the kingdom' (5:30,31). Thus the great nation of Babylon, after being used of God, was given into the hands of the Medes and Persians.

"During the time the prophets were declaring the coming downfall of Babylon, that nation was in the height of power, and no human being would hardly have foreseen its doom. May we realize that what God has predicted will surely come to pass. And let us realize that the great nation under which we enjoy the blessings of God may be brought low and given into the hands of others as a result of unthankful and unholy disregard of God" (Handbook of the Bible).

BABYLON IN 1 PETER 5:13 -- The Roman Catholic Church claims that Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13 is symbolic for Rome. The following summary for rejecting this view is from Barnes Notes on the New Testament:

"Others have supposed that Rome is intended by the name Babylon. This was the opinion of many of the Fathers, and also of Bede, Valesius, Grotius, Cave, Whitby, and Lardner. The principal reasons for this are, that such is the testimony of Papias, Eusebius, and Jerome; and that at that time Babylon on the Euphrates was destroyed. But the objections to this opinion seem to me to be insuperable. (a) There is no evidence that at that early period the name Babylon was given to Rome, nor were there any existing reasons why it should be. The name is generally supposed to have been applied to it by John, in the book of Revelation, (chap. xvi. 19; xvii. 5; xviii. 10,21;) but this was probably long after this epistle was written, and for reasons which did not exist in the time of Peter. There is no evidence that it was given familiarly to it in the time of Peter, or even at all until after his death. Certain it is, that it was not given so familiarly to it that when the name Babylon was mentioned it would be generally understood that Rome was intended. But the only reason which Peter could have had for mentioning the name Babylon at all, was to convey some definite and certain information to those to whom he wrote. (b) As has been already observed, the apostles, when they sent an epistle to the churches, and mentioned a place as the one where the epistle was written, were accustomed to mention the real place. (c) It would be hardly consistent with the dignity of an apostle, or any grave writer, to make use of what would be regarded as a nickname, when suggesting the name of a place where he then was. (d) if Rome had been meant, it would have been hardly respectful to the church there which sent the salutation, to have given it this name. Peter mentioned the church with respect and kindness; and yet it would have been scarcely regarded as kind to mention it as a 'Church in Babylon, if he used the term Babylon, as he must have done on such a supposition to denote a place of eminent depravity. (e) The testimony of the Fathers on this subject does not demonstrate that Rome was the place intended. So far as appears from the extracts relied on by Lardner, they do not give this as historical testimony, but as their own interpretation; and, from anything that appears, we are as well qualified to interpret the word as they were. (f) In regard to the objection that Babylon was at that time destroyed, it may be remarked that this is true so far as the original splendour of the city was concerned, but still there may have been a sufficient population there to have constituted a church. The destruction of Babylon was gradual. It had not become an utter desert in the time of the apostles. In the first century of the Christian era a part of it was inhabited, though the greater portion of its former site was a waste. All that time, there is no improbability in supposing that a Christian supposition that the word Babylon refers to Rome, rests nearly all the evidence which the Roman Catholics can adduce that the apostle Peter was ever at Rome at all. There is nothing else in the New Testament that furnishes the slightest proof that he ever was there. The only passage on which Bellarmine relies to show that Peter was at Rome, is the very passage now under consideration. He does not pretend to cite any other evidence from Scripture than this; nor does any other writer."

That Peter was not the pastor or "bishop" at Rome is evident from a study of Paul's epistles (the following is by Henry Hudson from Papal Power: Its Origins and Development):

"In A.D. 58 Paul wrote to the Romans, but does not mention Peter. In Romans 1:11, he wants to impart special gifts, and in Romans 1:15 he is ready to preach there. He sends greetings to twenty-seven persons, but none to Peter.

"In 61 Paul is conveyed a prisoner to Rome, and certain brethren go to meet him, but not Peter.

"At Rome Paul writes to the Galatians, and mentions Peter, but not as being there or as having been pontiff there for twenty years [as the Roman Catholic Church claims].

"The Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon were all written from Rome; but while others are mentioned as sending messages, or as being associated with Paul, Peter is never once mentioned.

"From Rome also Paul's last letter is written (the Second Epistle to Timothy). He says, 'At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me' (2 Timothy 4:16). So that if Peter were Bishop of Rome he enjoyed an immunity which was not accorded to Paul, and is guilty of having forsaken the great apostle.

"And, finally, in this very Epistle, written from Rome immediately before his martyrdom, Paul says, 'Only Luke is with me' (2 Timothy 4:11). This is conclusive.

"So Paul had written to Rome, he had been in Rome, and at the end he writes from Rome, and not only never once mentions Peter, but declares, 'Only Luke is with me.'"

While it is possible that Peter visited Rome briefly at some point, the biblical record testifies conclusively that he was not the bishop of the church at Rome.

BABYLON IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION. God foretells the rise of another Babylon in the last days before Christ returns. This last-days Babylon will be the embodiment of all the evil and rebellion of men throughout history (Re. 14:8; 17:5; 18:2,10,21). Thus, the O.T. Babylon was both a historical city and kingdom, and was also a prophetic symbol for the future Babylon. The final Babylon will be destroyed by Christ. "Babylon is repeatedly used by the prophets in a symbolic sense. Two Babylons are to be distinguished in the Revelation: Ecclesiastical Babylon, which is apostate Christendom, headed up under the Papacy; and Political Babylon, which is the Beast's confederated empire, the last form of Gentile world-dominion.

Ecclesiastical Babylon is "the great whore" (Re. 17:1), and is destroyed by political Babylon (Re. 17:15-18), that the beast may alone be the object of worship (2 Th. 2:3,4; Re. 13:15). The power of political Babylon is destroyed by the return of the Lord in glory" (Scofield).
(Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible)

The following is from ISBE (InternationalStandard Bible Encyclopedia).

All the references to Babylon in Rev are evidently symbolic. Some of the most important passages are Re 1:1; 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2,10,21. In Re 1:1; 17:5 Babylon is designated as musterion. This undoubtedly in dicates that the name is to be under stood figuratively. A few interpreters have believed that Jerusalem was the city that was designated as Babylon, but most scholars hold that Rome was the city that was meant. That interpretation goes back at least to the time of Tertullian (Adv. Marc., iii. 13). This interpretation was adopted by Jerome and Augustine and has been commonly accepted by the church. There are some striking facts which point to Rome as the city that is designated as Babylon.

(1) The characteristics ascribed to this Babylon apply to Rome rather than to any other city of that age: (a) as ruling over the kings of the earth (Re 17:18); (b) as sitting on seven mountains (Re 17:9); (c) as the center of the world's merchandise (Re 18:3,11-13); (d) as the corrupter of the nations (Re 17:2; 18:3; 19:2); (e) as the persecutor of the saints (Re 17:6).

(2) Rome is designated as Babylon in the Sibylline Oracles (5 143), and this is perhaps an early Jewish portion of the book. The comparison of Rome to Babylon is common in Jewish apocalyptic literature (see 2 Esdras and the Apocrypha Baruch).

(3) Rome was regarded by both Jews and Christians as being antagonistic to the kingdom of God, and its downfall was confidently expected, This conception is in accord with the predicted downfall of Babylon (Re 14:8; 18:2,10-21). As Babylon had been the oppressor of Israel, it was natural that this new power, which was oppressing the people of God, should be designated as Babylon.

3. In 1 Peter:

In 5:13 Babylon is designated as the place from which 1 Pet was written. Down to the time of the Reformation this was generally under stood to mean Rome, and two cursives added "en Roma." Since the Reformation, many scholars have followed Erasmus and Calvin and have urged that the Mesopotamian Babylon is meant. Three theories should be noted:

(1) That the Egyptian Babylon, or Old Cairo; is meant. Strabo (XVII, 807) who wrote as late as 18 AD, says the Egyptian Babylon was a strong fortress founded by certain refugees from the Mesop Babylon. But during the 1st century this was not much more than a military station, and it is quite improbable that Peter would have gone there. There is no tradition that connects Peter' in any way with Egypt.

(2) That the statement is to be taken literally and that the Mesop Babylon is meant. Many good scholars hold to this view, and among these are Weiss and Thayer, but 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 (Antiquities, XVIII, ix, 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.

(3) That Rome was the city that was designated as Babylon. The Apocalypse would indicate that the churches would understand the symbolic reference, and it seems to have been so understood until the time of the Reformation. The denial of this position was in line with the effort to refute Peter's supposed connection with the Roman church. Ancient tradition, however, makes it seem quite probable that Peter did make a visit to Rome (see Lightfoot, Clement,II , 493 ff).

Internal evidence helps to substantiate theory that Rome was the place from which the letter was written. Mark sends greetings (1 Pet 15:13), and we know he had been summoned to Rome by the apostle Paul (2Ti 4:11). The whole passage, "She that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you," seems to be figurative, and that being true, it is natural that Babylon should have been used instead of Rome. The character of the letter as a whole would point to Rome as the place of writing. Ramsay thinks this book is impregnated with Roman thought beyond any other book in the Bible (see The Church in the Roman Empire, 286). A.W. Fortune

   A wed site that has good information is at http://www.bible-knowledge.com/rise-and-fall-of-babylon/

   I do not think the USA in any way fits into what the Bible says about Babylon.   The USA is a nation that has abandoned God and has all the characteristics of Babylon.   In that sense when the Lord returns He will destroy all sin and evil as typified by Babylon.

   My unpublished commentary on Revelation 17-18 explains a great deal about Bablyon and can be found at
http://bible-truth.org/Revelation-Chapter17-18.pdf .  

If you have further questions or comments please write.



Cooper P Abrams III
Romans 12:1-2
http://bible-truth.org

"You cannot serve God without serving others."

"Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong. Let all your things be done with charity"  (1 Corinthians 16:13-14 )

For a clear explanation of God's plan of salvation please go to: http:\\bible-truth.org/gospel.html