The Judgement Of Rome In Revelation 17:1-18 {Part 56 of 63} Greg L Bahnsen

This morning we're in Revelation chapter 17. I'm going to do my best to get through that chapter and a good way into chapter 18 so that by next week we'll be discussing the significant prophecy of chapter 19 of Christ as the conquering warrior. In Revelation 17, we find an interpretation of some of the main symbols of the book, the second prophecy in the book of Revelation. And therefore it's a very important chapter for the overall approach that one takes to the Book of Revelation. And it's one over which it's a chapter over which the commentators have a good deal to wage war with one another. And I'd like to demonstrate for you in the midst of today's lesson some of the difficulties of biblical interpretation when one begins with an assumption as to what he's dealing with rather than letting the text speak for itself. And one therefore is forced to follow certain maneuvers to make his interpretation of the text fit his preconceived ideas. Chapter 17 of Revelation is one of the most dramatic illustrations of that problem in biblical interpretation. As you read the various commentaries as we come to chapter 17 and 18, you'll recall that in the 16th chapter 7 Bowls of Wrath have been poured out upon the Roman Empire and the city of Rome itself, the seven terminal plagues that God has intended for this empire. And in chapter 17 and 18, we find the judgment portrayed, the judgment of Rome portrayed in terms of the destruction of a terrible harlot. Chapter 17, verses 1 through 6 introduced the harlot to us. We have a description of this Harlot in verses 7 through 18 of the 17th chapter. The mystery of this harlot is going to be explained for John. And then in the 18th chapter, through verse 5 of chapter 19, we'll see the judgment of the harlot and the rejoicing of the saints over that destruction of the Roman harlot. As I said, Chapter 17 includes an extended interpretation of the symbols that are dealt with in this portion of the prophecy. And chapter 18 includes an extended dirge over the harlot, a dirge which echoes very much the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel in the Old Testament against Babylon, ancient Babylon that was the enemy of God, God's people in that time. So we come to chapter 17 and John is first given another memorable, indeed an appalling scene. He is shown an ostentatiously attired harlot who is adorned in wealth. John is told that this is a whore who sits on a seven headed monster, advertising her base trade and being intoxicated with the Blood of her victims. Her Christian victims. Okay, well, that's a dramatic scene, to be sure. The idea of this sumptuously adorned is what it amounts to. And she's riding upon a monster, a scarlet monster, a seven headed scarlet monster with ten horns and diadems on the horns. And she's intoxicated with blood. It's a terrible scene. But the point of the prophecy is not simply to pay attention to all the grisly details in which it is garbed. The point of the prophecy is that this kind of woman, this kind of ruler, this empire, is going to be judged. That's the good news. The good news is that God will avenge his saints. Verse 1 in chapter 17 summons John to see the harlot. And there came one of the seven angels that had the seven bowls and spake with me, saying, come hither, I will show thee the judgment of the great harlot that sitteth upon many waters. Verse 3. And he carried me away in the spirit into a wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting upon a scarlet covered beast. Now that language that John uses. And one of the seven angels came and spake with me, saying, come here, I will show you something with respect to this woman. And then he was taken away in the spirit. It's precisely the language used in chapter 21, verses 9 and 10, where we read by contrast. And there came one of the seven angels who had the seven bulls, who were laden with the seven last plagues. And he spake with me, saying, come hither, I will show thee the bride, the wife of the lamb. And he carried me away in the spirit to a mountain great and high. And so this portion of the prophecy can be somewhat schematized in terms of John being taken away in the spirit to see one kind of woman, then taken away in the spirit to see another kind of woman. First he sees the harlot upon the seven headed beast, upon the monster, and. And then he sees the bride of the lamb. He's taken to a wilderness to see how God will judge the harlot. He's taken to a great and high mountain to see how God has exalted his people. The harlot, of course, is a symbol Here in Chapter 17 of the Prostitution of whatever is right, the prostitution of that which is right for the ends of luxury and power and corruption. There's a good deal of Old Testament background to this kind of imagery. You might look first of all at Nahum, the third chapter, verse four. In the Old Testament, you'll recall that apostasy from God is often enough described in terms of harlotry when God is dealing with his chosen people, Israel. However, I don't believe that this image of harlotry can be so interpreted in Revelation, since we're not dealing with God's chosen people, we're dealing with the pagan city of Rome. And so if you want to see the image of harlotry for a pagan city in the Old Testament, Nahum 3, 4 says, speaking of Nineveh, because of the multitude of the whoredoms of the well favored harlot, the mistress of witchcrafts that selleth nations through her whoredoms and families through her witchcrafts. That's very similar to the language of Revelation 17:4. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and decked with gold and precious stone and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations, even the unclean things of her fornication. Isaiah 23:16 17 is also an example in the Old Testament of harlotry being used of a pagan city. Isaiah 23:16 Take a harp, go about the city, thou harlot that hast been forgotten. Make sweet melody, sing many songs, that thou mayest be remembered. And it shall come to pass after the end of 70 years, that Jehovah will visit Tyre, and she shall return to her hire, and shall play the harlot with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth. Here we have the oracle against Tyre from Isaiah, and Tyre is portrayed in terms of a harlot who sells her wares to all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth. This too is like Rome in John's day, seen as a harlot that is committing fornication with the kings of the earth. Verse 2, with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and they that dwell in the earth were made drunken with the wine of her fornication. Before we go on to that, let me comment that in verse one the harlot is said to sit upon many waters. In verse five we're told that the name of the harlot is Babylon the Great. So if you combine these two verses, what you come up with is that John sees here Babylon the Great upon many waters. Now if you look at Jeremiah 51:13, you'll see where John picked up that allusion. Jeremiah 51:13 O thou that dwellest upon many waters, abundant in treasures, thine end is come the measure of thy covetousness. Here I'm sorry, Jeremiah is dealing with the judgment that God will bring upon Babylon. And he speaks of Babylon as one that dwells upon many waters. Anybody understand that? How is it that Babylon dwells upon many waters? Of course, Babylon was a city set right upon the Euphrates River. The Euphrates river ran through the center of the city. But why many waters? Ancient archaeologists of ancient Babylon tell us that Babylon had a very intricate system of waterways, canals that took the water of the Euphrates river throughout the city and the outlying regions. And so Jeremiah refers to that fact, you who sit upon many canals upon many waters. And John now uses that imagery for Rome as Babylon the Great, the harlot sitting upon many waters, indicating that just as the water of the Euphrates trickled through all of Babylon, so also there's a distribution of Rome's influence over the many peoples and nations that the water represents. In verse 15, verse 15, we're told, and he saith unto me, the waters which thou sawest, where the harlot sitteth are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues. Okay, so Rome's influence has gone out throughout all the earth. And that's what verse two is saying. When we find that the kings have entered into illicit relations with Rome. And those who are dwelling on the earth, which is a common phrase for the unregenerate among mankind. In the Book of Revelation, those who dwell upon the earth also have been beguiled by the harlot. Those that dwell on the earth were made drunken with the wine of her fornication. That is, they become drunk with the seductive influence of Rome. In verse eight, we're told that those who dwell upon the earth are those who don't have their names written in the Lamb's Book of Life, the beast thou sawest was and is not about to come up out of the abyss to go into perdition. And they that dwell on the earth shall wander, they whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world. Okay, so verse one shows us the harlot sitting upon many waters that is raining over many people and distributing her influence in many ways, committing fornication with the kings of the earth, having those who are unregenerate the unbelievers among mankind, to be drunk with the wine of her fornication. Then John says, the angel carried him away in the spirit into a wilderness. Now, there are four times in the Book of Revelation where John mentions that he's in the spirit at chapter one, verse 10, chapter four, verse two in this particular place. And then chapter 21, verse 10. And over and over again you'll find commentators who will say that John is here referring to the ecstatic state in which he wrote. And I think that's highly unlikely. The biblical view of inspiration is not one of ecstasy. Ecstasy literally means, from the Greek, ekstasis, to stand out of. Have you ever used the phrase the person's beside himself? That is, he's standing outside of himself, he's not his normal self. That's what the Greek concept of ecstasy was. It was ecstasis. It was somebody who was not his normal self. He was standing outside of himself. That was not the biblical concept of inspiration. It wasn't that one came outside of himself. It was rather that the Spirit inspired him. That is, you have the idea of the Spirit indwelling the person, inspiration. God breathes out his word and his messengers speak as his mouthpiece. I think when John says that he was in the Spirit, what he's saying is that by the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit, he says what he does and he sees these visions. In particular, the Spirit here is said to give John a vision in terms of the wilderness. He's taken to a wilderness setting where this destruction is to take place. And I believe that probably alludes to Isaiah 21:1, where Isaiah now is referring to the fall of Babylon. Isaiah 21. You'll notice at verse 9 that the very language that John had used is found. And behold, here come a troop of men. And he answered and said, fallen, fallen is Babylon in the graven images, and so forth. All right, well, verse one of this oracle against Babylon began the burden of the wilderness of the sea. As whirlwinds in the south sweep through, it cometh from the wilderness from a terrible land. So just as Isaiah envisions the fall of Babylon, the oracle against Babylon in terms of a wilderness setting, so John now is taken to the wilderness to see the fall of the latter day Babylon. And as I said before, the woman in verse one that sat upon many waters is now said in verse three to be sitting upon a scarlet covered beast. John does not impose an artificial rigidity and conformity on all of his symbols. You recall, for instance in chapter one that we Christ is said to hold the stars of the churches in his right hand. And yet Christ is said with his right hand to pick up John, who is prostrate before him. Are we supposed to combine these two things and somehow bring together the idea of the stars in the hand picking up John? I don't think so. I think rather John here is Going from one image to another. This is a succession of symbols. And he doesn't intend for us to try to draw some kind of overall scheme where each one of them correlates with one another. John has said that the woman sits upon many waters. Now he says that she sits upon a scarlet covered beast. Interestingly, that beast originally arose from what? The sea, the Mediterranean Sea being the Roman Empire, coming, as the people living in Palestine would understand, coming from across the sea. And that beast was beckoned by Satan, the red dragon. So now we have the beast from the sea, so scarlet, covered, carrying this harlot. And there's another slight change. We're told here in verse four. I'm sorry, in verse three, that this scarlet covered beast is full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and 10 horns. The previous beast we had seen had seven heads and 10 horns. However, we were told there that the names of blasphemy were written upon the heads of the beast. Now the names of blasphemy are portrayed as being throughout the body of the beast. Those names of blasphemy are perhaps not direct blasphemies against God uttered by the Roman rulers, but indirect blasphemies, in that they claimed titles of deities such as Theos, Divine Soter, Savior, Kyrios, Lord. The emperors wanted to be called divine saviors and lords, and that was blasphemy in the ears of any righteous Jew. And so John says he sees this body, the beast is full of blasphemies. They're over the entire body. In verse four, then we see the harlot with her luxurious dress riding upon that monster with seven heads and ten horns. It's quite a picture. Purple and scarlet are the colors of the harlot. These in the ancient world were very expensive dyes, very hard to extract, and therefore quite expensive. And the color purple obviously was a royal color in the ancient world. And we even see that in the Bible in the old testament, judges 8:26 and Daniel 5:20. Excuse me, Daniel 5. Seven passages show us the connection of royalty with purple garb and scarlet Garb, as in Nahum 2:3. Nahum 2:3 was a symbol of magnificence. And so here we're supposed to have a royal and magnificent harlot. Of course, that kind of adorning is in contrast to what we find in chapter 19, verse 8, where we read of the bride of the Lamb. And it was given unto her that she should array herself in fine linen, bright and pure. For the fine linen is the righteousness of the saints. Over against this luxurious picture of the harlot stands the pure picture of the bride, and the harlot is said to be adorned with gold and precious stones. In Ezekiel 28:13, the king of Tyre is described in the same words. And remember that oracle against Tyre mentioned earlier in our lesson had indicated that Tyre was a harlot. So there is Old Testament background to this as well. But now the woman, the harlot, is adorned in gold and precious stones, and that stands in contrast to the modest piety of the godly woman in the New Testament. Look at 1 Timothy 2, 9. In like manner that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety, not with braided hair, in gold or pearls, or costly raiment, but which becometh women professing godliness, good works. Woman should be adorned in good works rather than in costly raiment, in gold, pearls, and so forth. She should have modest apparel. This is just an aside, but sometime if you want to challenge yourself to learn how to interpret New Testament ethical injunctions, you might consider the the godliness of women today who braid their hair. The Bible says that a godly woman will not braid her hair. Rather not, it says, not with braided hair in gold or pearls for costly raiment, but rather in modest apparel. And then in 1 Peter 3:3, we find a very similar injunction. Whose adorning Let it not be the outward adorning of braiding the hair, and of wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on apparel, but let it be the hidden man of the heart, and the incorruptible apparel of a meek and quiet spirit, which in the sight of God is of great price. The same point being made, and again, it's the braided hair, the gold, pearls and precious stones that seem to be offensive to the New Testament writers. Well, the reason I made that aside about the braided hair, just so that we don't misunderstand, the point of the lesson is that even in the New Testament you find what is in the genre of the Old Testament case law, alright, that is ethical injunctions given in terms of the culture in which the writers then lived. And in that day braided hair was a sign of a loose woman, and to wear that kind of gaudy apparel and very wealthy looking clothing and jewels and so forth, was not becoming of a modest and godly woman. And consequently the injunction still applies to us today, although it will turn out now I can be corrected by the women who are here, for the most part those who braid their hair today would be just the opposite of a loose woman. I mean, that would be a sign of a conservative style of dress and so forth. So in the New Testament, what I'm saying is one doesn't get away from the necessity of understanding in the culture of its day, the ethical injunctions found in making application to another culture. If one has to accept that in the New Testament, I dare say it ought not to be an offense to accept it in the Old. But I'll start talking about theonomy if I don't stop now. John's point in Revelation 17 is that you don't have a modest and godly woman. You have in fact a harlot, one who is the bedecked in this wealthy type of garment and has gold impression stones and pearls. And in her hand John says, Revelation 17:4 she has a golden cup full of abominations, even the unclean things of her fornication. I can't be absolutely sure of this, and I don't want to in mixed company go very far into it either, but I think that is a rather gross symbol John is speaking of. The golden cup, of course, promises carnal satisfaction. You put only the wealthiest things in your golden cup, and so forth. But John says, rather than bringing this carnal satisfaction, it's full of abominations and the impurities of fornication. The word abomination here, by the way, is the word used throughout the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament, for the moral and ceremonial impurity that God requires to be taken out of his people. And in Mark 13:14, the same word is used for the abomination of desolation, taken from Daniel 12, verse 11. So anyway, John has just piled image upon image upon image to point out what a terrible and wicked woman this is that he sees writing. And then verse five comes to one of the most apparently cryptic verses in the New Testament, and it's referred to often by those who know little of the New Testament, but some of this kind of imagery and upon her forehead a name written and now the commentators and the translations differ is the name that is written mystery? Is her name mystery? And then further, Babylon the Great, the mother of the whores and of the abominations of the earth. Or is it rather and upon her forehead a name written, a mystery. And now the inscription, the name is Babylon the great, the mother, etc. Well, I personally favor the reading that mystery is not part of the name. The name of the harlot is not mystery Babylon the Great, but rather it is A mysterious name. And upon her. It reads like this then. And upon her forehead, a name written a mystery. Okay. Or, if you will, don't take this name literally. This is a mystical name. It's to be interpreted spiritually or figuratively. Mystery is not intended as part of the inscription or the name itself. The name of the harlot is Babylon the Great, the mother of the whores and of the abominations of the earth. It was a custom of Roman courtesans, by the way, to place their name upon their forehead, most likely with a headband. It was very stylish in that day, you see, not to wear a name tag, but to wear your name upon a headband. That just reminds you, by the way, of how different that culture is from our own. And commentators must take that into account. But in that day, that was considered stylish. And a young lady going to a ball or to a party of sorts would introduce herself in that way. And so John says, here we have a harlot who has come to the party, and upon her headband you have this strange name, this mysterious name. Babylon the Great, the mother of the whores and the abominations of the earth. That title is indicating that the harlot is really a great system of godlessness. A system of godlessness reputed for its luxurious corruption and one which encourages harlotry and obscene practices throughout the earth. That's why she's called the mother of the horrors and of the abominations of the earth. You know, in the days of Rome itself, it wasn't uncommon for writers to speak of Rome in almost exactly these words. Seneca, the well known historian, called Rome, quote, a filthy sewer. He thought that the morals of the city of Rome were so bad that it could be called a filthy sewer. And Tacitus, the historian, says that Rome was, quote, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world congregate and find a home. So here you have this filthy sewer with every obscene and dirty thing in the world finding its way here to Rome. And John speaks of this city as the mother of harlots or of whores. Actually, the mother of whores. And I think that probably refers to, or at least is an allusion to, the cult of Sybil or Sibily, depending on your pronunciation. That was the cult of the great mother in the ancient world. Anybody who's done any research into sexual practices through history, as I had to do when I wrote my book on homosexuality, will see that over and over and over again, almost with boredom One finds reference to the cult of the Great Mother, the cult of the Great Mother in the ancient world, which was of course a sexual cult. And we know that this cult was practiced, this cult of Sybil, with orgiastic practices in Rome from as early as 204 BC. So John writing now in the late 60s, it's at least two and a half centuries now that Rome has been reputed, as if you will, partaking of the Great Mother cult and its sexual practices. All right, so Rome, the filthy sewer where all the horrible and shameful things in the world find a home. Rome, you see, that practices this Great Mother cult. Now, John says, appropriately, the name is Babylon the Great, the great enemy of God's people, the mother of the whores and of the abominations of the earth. Verse 6 says that this harlot is drunk with blood. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I wondered with a great wonder. It's hard to find the appropriate English translation of that last phrase. What John is saying is that he's revolted by the gory spectacle and it causes him to be amazed and confused. He wonders with great wonder, what on earth is this, this woman drunken with blood. The metaphor of drunken with blood comes from Isaiah 49:26, where Babylon is said to be drunken with blood as well. And what it is pointing to, however, is the wanton slaughter of many believers with the intoxicating effect it produced in the murderous harlot Rome. I won't go into a discourse on human psychology here, but there's something to the fact that people who are godless and murderous and violent usually find a hot demon of rage, if you will, within them, so that once they start in their acts of violence and destruction or murdering against others, they come to sow lust after, so want it that they get carried away and they can't control themselves. And I think that's John's reference here. Drunk with the blood of the saints. She's intoxicated with this violence against Christians. Now then, what could John be referring to? Why, after all this piling up of imagery, why is John stressing this? What is he referring to? Well, I'll tell you what I think exactly John was referring to here. And the reason I think we need to be very exact about it is that often enough commentaries that don't want to take a preterist view of the Book of Revelation, that is, do not want to interpret it as being fulfilled in Its major images in John's own day, the day of the ancient church, will say, well, you know, in the time of Nero, it's just not appropriate to speak of this kind of persecution. Yes, there was a kind of local persecution, but it wasn't anything in comparison to what Domitian did later. Well, as a matter of historical fact, we don't know that much about what Domitian did. We know of his reputation. Ironically, his reputation was that he was the second Nero. But nevertheless, that's a very weak kind of argument. What do we know about Nero? Well, let me read a little bit about Nero from Tacitus. Tacitus says that after the great fire of AD 64, of course he didn't call it AD 64. After the great fire that we know to have taken place in the year 64 A.D. nero tried to divert attention away from himself, the source of the fire, and to place the blame on Christians. And so he persecuted the Christians, says Tacitus, quote, with the most exquisite tortures. They were covered with the skins of beasts, torn by dogs, nailed to crosses, and burned to serve as nightly illumination, end of quote. And so John sees, you see here, Nero and the beast and the harlot, drunk with the blood of the saints. 1 who would you see nightly light, his parties, literally torches, for his nightly parties were Christians burning upon crosses. That's what kind of scoundrel and monster this man Nero was in. 1st Peter 4:12, 13. One can't miss the allusion as well. Peter says, beloved, do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial among you which comes upon you to prove you as though a strange thing happened unto you. But insomuch as you are partakers of Christ's sufferings, rejoice that at the revelation of his glory also you may rejoice with exceeding joy. Peter says, I warn you of a fiery trial that is right on the horizon. But don't think it strange if you feel fill up the sufferings of Christ, and if you partake of those sufferings yourself, make sure you suffer for righteousness sake, he says. Peter, imprisoned in Rome, writing from Babylon, Remember at the very end of the epistle, he says at verse 13, chapter 5, she that is in Babylon elect together with you, salutes you. Peter, imprisoned in Babylon, which is to say imprisoned in Rome, writes of that fiery trial that he knew was on its way. Nero, after the fire of Rome, would eventually burn Christians at the stake. Nailed to crosses, he would allow dogs to tear their flesh. Well, what's going to happen to the woman the harlot that John describes in chapter 17 for doing these things. It will turn out later in the chapter that God will allow her to be stripped naked and her flesh to be devoured by beasts. In chapter 18, we'll see that God will burn her to the ground. As I said last week, it's blood for blood, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. God always avenges appropriately. Now we come to verse seven in chapter 17. And the angel said unto John. You see, by this time, John's head is just reeling now with all these images and all these symbols, with all these pictures. And he's confused and he's amazed and he's wondering at all this. And the angel said unto him, why'd you wonder? There's a certain dramatic understatement involved here. I believe we are supposed to chuckle at that. John here is just as we would be, you know, totally confused. And the angel says, what's so difficult about this? Why are you confused? What's so amazing? I'll tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carried her, which has the seven heads and ten horns. This is very significant. The angel says, I will tell you what it means, John. God expects the visions in the Book of Revelation to be understood. He expects that we're going to take the Book of Revelation and understand it. In chapter 7, verses 13 and 14, a similar conversation is found, a similar dialogue. And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, these that are arrayed in the white robes, who are they and where do they come from? And I said unto him, my Lord, you're the one who knows. And he said unto me, these are they that have come out of the great trip. Excuse me, the Great Tribulation. Again, John is expected to understand what he's being told. And so throughout the book of Revelation, you'll notice that God will provide his own interpretation of the symbols and visions. God will see to it that we know what the key points of this prophecy mean. And so let's just go through a few of those points. Revelation 1, verse 20, and the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden candlestands. Okay, here I'll declare the mystery, the meaning of the. Of this mystical vision. I'll give you the interpretation. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven candlestands are the seven churches. So at the very beginning, John is told, God wants you to understand the mystery. This is what it refers to. This is its meaning. In chapter seven, verse 14, which we just looked at. And the elder says to him, these are they that come out of great tribulation, washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. So John is given a definite referent for the vision in chapter 10, verse 7. But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he is about to sound, then you see, we're going to find the significance of the prophecy. Then is finished. The mystery of God according to the good tidings, according to the Gospel, which he declared to his servants, the prophets, you see? Then we'll accomplish the idea that the Jews and the Gentiles have been brought into the church on an equal footing. Okay? Chapter 11, verse 8. And their dead bodies lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt. Now, literally, we're told where their Lord was crucified. Spiritually speaking, this is like Egypt and Sodom, God's sight, but literally it's Jerusalem where the Lord was crucified. Chapter 13, verse 18. Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast, for it's the number of a man, and his number is 666. Now, totally apart from the fact that commentators still argue over some of these things, my point is that throughout the book, God is giving clues to John, God is giving the interpretation to John. God is giving the understanding of these visions to John so that he won't be misled. And so again now in chapter 17, we're going to find an extended interpretation of the symbols of the prophecy. My only comment is, if we will not understand and accept the obvious, it shall be no surprise if we stumble over the obscure. Now, I'm going to try to show you the sad story of many commentators who will not accept the obvious. And therefore their commentaries go into flights of genuine interest and fantasy. I think when they start to talk about some of the obscure parts of this book. But there are key points, if you will, touchstones throughout the book where God is saying, this is what it's all about. This is what it means. This is how you'd understand it. And I think we better understand what John tells us very obviously here, if we're not going to be misled when it comes to the tougher sections of the book. Okay? Verse eight, by the way, verse eight is not part of the interpretation. That's something that you should bear in mind because when you read it, it's going to be difficult. Verse nine begins the interpretation. Here is the mind that hath wisdom. Okay, now begins the interpretation, but verse 8 is still part of the introduction. The beast that you saw was and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and to go into perdition. And they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, they whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast, how that he was and is not, and shall come. Well, what is this beast that was, isn't and is coming and is coming into perdition? I think it's rather clear that that's to be a parody upon the resurrected Savior, who is described in very similar language in chapter one, verse 18, chapter two, verse eight. Who was, who was dead but lives now forever, or of the eternal God described in chapter one, verses four and eight, and chapter four, verse eight, the one who was and is and is coming, or who will be. So we have this parody on the resurrection of Christ and on the eternality of God. But what is the parody pointing to? Well, as satanically motivated, John is saying the beast is always returning because he's satanically motivated. He comes up out of the abyss, he's always returning. And so we find an example of this in chapter 13 at verse 3, where we first were introduced to the beast. And I saw one of his heads as though it had been smitten unto death, and his death stroke was healed, and the whole earth wondered after the beast. Verses 12 and 14 repeat that. And he exercised all the authority of the first beasts in his sight, and he makes the earth and them that dwell therein to worship the first beast whose death stroke was healed, verse 14. And he deceived them that dwell on the earth by reason of the signs, and which were given to him to do in the sight of the beast, saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast who has the stroke of the sword and lived. Here's this beast, you see, you battle against it, and you battle against it. It's like the Hydra monster of ancient mythology. And every time you seem to destroy one head, another head is there in its place, right? And so here's this beast who was, is not, and yet returns from the abyss again, always this power of resuscitation and that power, that staying power of the beast to keep returning, to persecute, makes the unregenerate world stand in awe. Some commentators make a lot of this, and I'm just not sure whether John intends it to be taken this specifically, but they want to make the point that the beast, at this point is not. And most of them say that means that John is standing in a lull between waves of persecution. The beast, you see, has persecuted. Now there seems to be a palm, and then another beast is going to come, or that same beast will start a persecution again, will take up its beastly character. At least this much is intended. That this beast seems to at some points recede in power, and yet it comes right back with full force from the abyss, satanically motivated. And whether that means the persecution is in a lull right now is another question. The point, however, is that the beast is destined for perdition. It may come up continually from the abyss, but God will destroy it. Interestingly, those who are said to be unregenerate, those who dwell on the earth, who wander after the beast, don't have their names written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world. One could hardly ask for a clearer reference to predestination. Those who are saved are those who, from the very foundation of the world, have their names written in God's Book of Life. Now, earlier in my exposition, I went into a long discussion of the Book of Life metaphor throughout the Bible and in the New Testament. I won't repeat that here, but I will repeat a comment made by one writer who said that John is not talking about determinism here. John couldn't be talking about predestination. Why? Because earlier in the book he says that it's possible for one's name to be blotted out of the Book of Life from the foundation of the world. The reference here is the chapter three, verse five. Ironically, the reference teaches just the opposite of what the commentator is saying, though, because what we find out is that those who do have their names written in the Book of Life have them written in indelible ink. Chapter three, verse five says, he that overcometh shall thus be arrayed in white garments. I will in no wise blot his name out of the Book of Life. It doesn't say that. In fact, anybody's name is blotted out. The point is those who walk in white garments have their names written, so they're never removed. That's the point. God never blots out the name from the Book of Life. What we learn in chapter 17 is that those who dwell on the earth never have their names written there to begin with. And so, in fact, John is teaching predestination. He's teaching that it's indelible once one's name is written in the Book of Life. And only the regenerate have their names written there. That name is never blotted out. All right, here we have this beast, okay? With this power of resuscitation always coming back, always occurring. Verse 9. For the discerning and wise mind, the meaning is now given. Here is the mind that has wisdom. That reminds me of chapter 13, verse 18, where John says virtually the same thing. Here is wisdom. Here's the one who's thinking properly. Here's the discerning and the wise mind. He'll know what this is all about. And then John makes the most clear reference to the city of Rome that one could ever ask for. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. The harlot sits on seven hills. Seven mountains. A first century reader would have had no question but that the seven mountains referred to Rome because Rome was commonly designated. In fact, in most commentaries that have any detail and footnoting device, you'll notice that most will start detailing the references to Rome, the city set on seven hills. And then we'll say etc. Etc. It's almost impossible to give the number of references. It was so common a designation. The city built upon seven hills. Rome. So here's Harlot, the city of rome, sitting upon seven heads, which is to say, upon seven hills, seven mountains. And then in verse 10, we find out that John intends a double application of the symbol of seven heads. And those seven heads are seven kings, okay? In the first place, you can think of the harlot as a city set on seven hills, okay? And you almost see John winking. Get the point? It's Rome. And the seven heads can be deemed the heads of the empire, the heads of the beast, they are seven kings, he says, and what are we told? The five are fallen, the one is, the other is not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a little while. Remember, those who will not accept the obvious going to stumble at the obscure. John says, here's the mind that has wisdom. It's a city set on seven hills. There are seven rulers. Five are fallen, the six is now reigning. And when the seventh comes, he's only going to last a little while. Well, it turns out John is locating himself within the succession of Roman emperors. Turns out that Julius Caesar took to himself the title of imperator, I.e. emperor. He called himself the Emperor of Rome and he was reckoned by many Roman and Jewish writers both as the first emperor, Rome. Moreover, after Nero, between Nero and VespAsian, we find three rival emperors who ruled briefly and were considered kings in the Sibylline oracles and emperors in Josephus. In the literature of the period, then we find those three referred to as emperors and kings as well. Now it turns out that only one interpretive scheme will fit the facts. I'd like to go through that for you. If you begin with Julius Caesar as the first imperator of Rome and then you count down, you'll have Julius, Roman historians, Augustus, okay, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius Nero, Galba. Who is Galba? You probably don't think much of him because it turns out that Galba came to power and was killed seven months after he did. He only lasted a short while. Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius Nero and Galba. John says five are fallen. The sixth now reigns. The seventh, when he comes, will last a short time, fits precisely into what John said earlier. Here's the mind that has wisdom. The number of the beast is 666, which exactly correlates to the Hebrew spelling of Nero. So Nero is reigning, John says. He says it just about as clearly as one could ask. And he says, and when the next guy comes, he's not going to make it very long. And he doesn't. It turns out history vindicates that and gall will last only seven months. So only one scheme, historical scheme, fits the facts as I see it, and I think it's an obvious fitting of the facts. And yet when you read the premillennial interpreters of the Book of Revelation who must insist on a futurist interpretation of the Book of Revelation, it's as though they've never heard of that or even considered that possibility. Well, they have heard of it and they have considered it. And so obvious and so refutes their position that they like to suppress that I believe. I want you to note the problems that are created when one starts with the false assumption that this book has to have been written late in the first century during the reign of Domitian. Now here we have, in the case of Mountz in the NIC series, a man who says we know the book from external evidence is written likely in the reign of Domitian. Well, being a presuppositionalist, I tend to give internal evidence greater weight than external evidence to the word of God. And I also think that God here is trying to make a very definite point. The mind that has wisdom is going to understand it. The angel says, I'll tell you the mystery. It's seven rulers. The sixth one's now reigning. When the seventh one comes, it's going to be a short while. I think it's obvious that God's word is telling us Nero was reigning in that day. But now, Mount says, from external evidence, we don't, we don't believe that. We think it's written in the reign of Domitian. I want you to note what happens when you start with that kind of false assumption. He speaks of those who start with Augustus rather than Julius Caesar. Yet he's the one who said Julius Caesar took the title Imperator and was reckoned by many writers, both Roman and Jewish, as the first emperor. He says that's the problem with many counting schemes is they don't begin with Julius Caesar, and you have to begin with Julius Caesar if you're going to be fair. Right. But he says now there are those who start with Augustus and skipping the three pretenders, Galba, Otho and who is the third one? Well, anyway, there were three, and then Vespasian came along. We would arrive at Vespasian as the king, who is that is the ruler in power at the time of the writing of the book. Yet he says the evidence is fairly conclusive that the Book of Revelation was written at a considerably later period during the reign of Domitian, AD 81 to 96. And now we get into this thing that just is a waste of print. I believe different answers are offered for this anachronism. You see, if you, if you count it the way, even starting with Augustus, you only get as far as Vespasian, you don't get all the way down to Domitian. Actually, if you start with Julius Caesar, you come to Nero and then you have the three pretenders and then you have Vespasian, So that's even worse. But granting that you can start with Augustus, you only get as far as Vespasian. And yet, says this commentator, we know that it was written during the reign of Domitian. So how did John make such a mistake? One might start to think that John didn't make the mistake, but somebody else did. Different answers are offered for this anachronism. One frequent suggestion is that John incorporates an earlier oracle from the time of Vespasian. Alright, a good liberal technique. John here is combining a lot of materials. This is an earlier scrap of material he found written during the reign of Vespasian, even though he's writing it later. Another is that John placed himself back in time and after the manner of apocalyptic writers, wrote history in the guise of prophecy. There goes the inerrancy of God's word right down the tubes. Right, what we have here is the suggestion that John is pretending that this is prophecy when he really wrote from a later period. These and others. This commentator who does believe in inerrancy, he says these lack persuasion. Yes they do. He gives some other illustrations of those that lack persuasion. He says by starting with Caligula, who first provoked a crisis over emperor worship, and by ignoring the three short reigns, it is possible to arrive at Domitian as the sixth ruler. Which is to say if you begin with Domitian and count backwards and find some reason why Caligula should be the beginning point, then we can start counting from Caligula and count upwards and find Domitian as the answer. A good example of circular reasoning. By counting only those emperors who had been apothesized by the Senate, Rist also arrives at Domitian as the ruling emperor. Well, of course that won't work either. He says the text is quite clear. King number six is ruling at the time of John's writing. However, one tries to calculate the seven kings as Roman emperors, he encounters difficulties which cast considerable doubt on the entire approach. Anybody notice any difficulties in my interpretation? If you start counting with Julius Caesar, as he says you must, you come to Nero 666 which is the sixth, and Galba becomes the seventh who ruled a short time. Now I don't think however one tries to calculate the seven kings, one encounters difficulties. Only if you avoid the obvious does one encounter difficulties. And so this commentator goes on to say a different approach is to take the seven kings as the succession of secular empires. So we don't have seven kings, we have seven kingdoms. Alfred, for instance, lists Egypt, Nineveh, Babylon, Persia and Greece as the five that have fallen. Rome is the present kingdom and and the one that is to come is the Christian empire beginning with Constantine. There's some embarrassing things in that. I'm going to mention them in a minute. Hendriksen has a slightly different listing. Okay, Zeiss or Seiss, however you pronounce. The man who is a pre millennial interpreter is the one who wrote a great lecture, a lengthy lecture, arguing that these seven heads have to be seven successive kingdoms. And he says any schoolboy knows what the seven kingdoms are. And so he lists them as any schoolboy would list them. Hendriksen lists them differently. Apparently not all the schoolboys know what the seven emperors or empires of the world have been. Hendrickson has a slightly different listing and makes the seventh quote a collective title for all anti Christian governments between the fall of Rome and the final empire of Antichrist. John says, and when the seventh comes he will reign a short while. And Hendriksen says the seventh is the collective title for all the pagan empires from Rome to the end of the world. If you will not accept the obvious, I say again, you are going to stumble over the obscure. The basic problem, says this commentator, is that the Greek word under consideration is everywhere throughout the New Testament, translated king and not kingdom. And so therefore, there's another problem with this approach. So you can't use the listing of emperors approach, this man says, because you got to get to Domitian somehow, and you can't do that. So that fails. You can't say this is a succession of kingdoms, secular empires, because there's a lot of different lists. And besides, a collective title for this, you know, for a long empire that's supposed to be very short, not very likely, the Greek word doesn't fit. And so he says perhaps the most satisfactory explanation of the seven kings is that the number seven is primarily symbolic and stands for the power of the Roman Empire as a historic whole. Well, then why does John make such a point of emphasizing each individual head? The shortness of the seventh, the currentness of the sixth, the one that was struck as though dead, and the beast. I mean, John is not dealing with a collective whole. He has very specific things in mind. It's a succession of emperors, I tell you. And John's listing himself as living in the day of Nero, verse 11 shows that the beast is in fact the empire. And the beast that was and is not is himself also an eighth, and is of the seventh and goes into perdition. Granted, that's a rather difficult verse. It's difficult for all commentators, not difficult for any particular interpretation. But what we're told here is that the beast itself is an eighth ruler. That is, the beast continues to rule after these seven fall. And he continues with the character of the first seven. He's of the seven. We're going to find out that later. Well, let's read on. And the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority as kings with the beast for one hour they have one mind, and give their power and authority unto the beast. These aren't Roman kings, since they received no power as yet when John was writing. Moreover, we're going to read in just a couple of verses, verse 15. Excuse me, verse 16. And the 10 horns which you saw and the beast, these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, shall eat of her flesh and burn her utterly with fire. And so the beast is going to turn on the harlot with the help of the ten kings. So these are not Roman kings. These are not the kings of the earth who mourn over the fall of Babylon. In chapter 18, here we have specific, not specific kings or kingdoms, but we have an indication that those kings as a whole that have not as yet received power will, in a final day take over the power of the empire, the power of the beast. And they will use that against the city of Rome itself, against the harlot. Precisely what history teaches us, by the way, that the outlying powers of the empire turned against the city and sacked it over and over again. So in a short while, we're told 10 Kings, a group of kings, are going to collaborate with the empire, the power of the empire against the city itself. Verse 14 tells us, however, that at that point, when the Roman beast. Excuse me, when the Roman harlot falls and this other beast, the power of the empire, takes over with the ten outlying kings. @ that point, we're going to see that the church of Jesus Christ is really the victorious one. These shall war against the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them. For he is the Lord of lords and King of kings. And they also shall overcome that are with him called and chosen and faithful. Those who are with him are going to share the victory of the Lord of lords. In chapter 19, verse 14, we see this sharing of the victory. And the armies which are in heaven followed him upon white horses, the traditional symbol of victory followed him upon white horses clothed in fine linen, white and pure. In chapter two of Revelation, verses 26 and 27, Christ had already promised that his people would share with him in the rule over the nations. And he that overcometh, and he that keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give authority over the nations. And he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as the vessels of the potter are broken to shivers. As I also have received of my father. I said, as I am going to rule over the nations, so I shall give such rule to my people as well. They shall share in the victory over the beast as he takes, you see, the power of the ten kings and finally destroys the Roman harlot. In a nutshell, we have history laid out before us. You see, the harlot is raining. She's going to be burned with fire. She's going to be sacked. She's going to fall. The ten kings, however, will not enjoy that victory. Rather, the church of Jesus Christ will enjoy it. And as history tells us, it was in fact with the fall of the Roman Empire that the unshakable strength of Christ's kingdom was seen. That has continued even to today and shall until the Lord returns. Well, let's just finish out chapter 17 and then. Quick, quickly. Verse 17 says that God's the one who will put it into the hearts of these ten kings to do these things and to give their kingdom unto the beast until the words of God should be accomplished. It's always according to God's prophecy and God's word and decree that these things take place. And then finally John tells us the woman that you saw is the great city which reigns over the kings of the earth. Okay, so we have a city set on seven hills, the harlot Rome. We have a beast with seven heads, seven emperors. And that beast will finally give its power to the outlying kings and they will destroy the Roman harlot. Here's the mind that has wisdom. Let's pray. Lord, we pray that you would indeed by your spirit, illumine our reading of your word, that we'd understand it properly, not be led into false ends and to dead ends when it comes to interpreting your word. And Lord, we pray that if we have interpreted it properly, that you will bless our study together today and that it will encourage us that indeed by your word all things take place in history, that everything falls into place, every single detail that your word governs and governs for the sake of your people. We pray, Lord, that we would be encouraged that you have brought vengeance upon the one that was drunk with the blood of the martyrs and the saints, just as you shall bring vengeance upon all those who dare to oppose your son and the people of your son. And we pray these things in Jesus name.