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:-TMR 38.3

The angel told John that the woman which he had seen was the great city which reigned over the kings of the earth, and that the seven heads of the beast were seven mountains upon which the woman sat. The 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, for the following reasons:-TMR 39.1

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; and hence the interpretation of the woman as a city, and of the heads of the beasts 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.TMR 39.2

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:-TMR 39.3

“The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.” “The woman which thou sawest in 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:-TMR 40.1

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. It would be utter folly to assert this of a literal mountain. Hence the heads are not mountains of earth.TMR 40.2

2. Each of the seven heads is represented in chap. 12 with a crown upon it, even as each of the ten horns is thus represented in chap. 13. Each of the heads must therefore represent a kingdom or government, even as the horns represent governments.TMR 40.3

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 contemporary. 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.TMR 40.4

4. The heads of the beast must, according to Daniel 7:6 compared with Daniel 8:22, be explained as kingdoms or governments. Mountains, according to Daniel 2:35, 44 and 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.TMR 41.1

Having proved that the mountains are not literal, but symbolic, it follows that the woman who sits 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. Therefore it is a mistaken idea that a woman in the book of Revelation, as a symbol, always represents a literal city.TMR 41.2

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 on 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 Caesars, was at Rome in Italy. Luke 2:1; Acts 25:10-12, 21; compared with Acts 26:32; 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 the beast.TMR 41.3

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.TMR 42.1

Were Babylon a literal city, but few, at most, of the people of God 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.TMR 42.2

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 far from being a commercial city as any one upon the globe; and the destruction of Rome would not in the slightest degree affect commercial business.TMR 42.3

“At Rome,” says Gibbon, “commerce was always held in contempt.” Nor could the sailors and ship-masters of the earth lament over her, saying, “What city is like unto this great city!” for either New York or London is equal to a great number of such cities 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.TMR 43.1