Revelation 17–18. If you have been keeping up with our journey through Revelation, you will recognize that we have completed the three major cycles of God's judgment on the unbelieving inhabitants of the earth (chapters 6–16): the seal, trumpet, and bowl judgments. These three cycles are generally what we call "the Great Tribulation." Each new cycle brought heightened intensity, and before or after each cycle there was an interlude that gave perspective and additional insight.

So at the end of the seal judgments we were introduced to the 144,000 sealed servants from Israel, along with the multitude saved out of the tribulation. At the end of the trumpet judgments, a mighty angel declared that there would be no more delay. Two witnesses testified to the mighty acts of God. We learned the origin, purpose, and activity of the unholy trinity — the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet — especially as they relate to Israel, the Christ child, and the deception of the world. The Lamb and the 144,000 appeared together, followed by angelic messengers giving a last call to salvation, announcing the fall of Babylon, pronouncing judgment on those who worship the beast, and depicting a final harvest.

The bowl judgments — "seven plagues, which are the last" — brought God's wrath to completion (15:1). They brought unimaginable destruction: every living thing in the sea died (16:3), and enormous hailstones fell on people (16:21).

In keeping with the bowl judgments, chapters 17–18 declare the final judgment on "Babylon the great," repeatedly described as the city with whom the kings and inhabitants of the earth committed sexual immorality (14:8; 17:2; 18:3; cf. Jeremiah 51:7). There is disagreement about the identity of the symbols in these chapters: some believe Babylon represents Rome (which John's first readers could most readily relate to), others Jerusalem (in light of 11:8, where it is called "the great city"), and still others a literal, rebuilt Babylon (because it is so named and has the strongest Old Testament parallels, especially Jeremiah 50–51).

Some symbols are partially explained. We are told that the seven heads on which the woman sits are "seven mountains" and also "seven kings" (17:9–10); these may represent kingdoms or realms of authority. The ten horns are "ten kings" (17:12). The woman herself is "the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth" (17:18). She is named "Babylon the great" (17:5). A good argument can be made that the word "mystery" attached to her name does not mean the name is merely symbolic; "mystery" in the New Testament often refers to something previously hidden that is now being revealed (e.g., Ephesians 3:2–6). So the angel tells John, "I will tell you the mystery of the woman" (17:7). One mystery concerning Babylon is why it was never destroyed in ancient times in the way Jeremiah prophesied; Revelation reveals, in my view, that its final destruction is yet future.

As you might guess, I lean toward understanding the great city not as Rome or Jerusalem but as a literal, future Babylon that will dominate the nations spiritually and economically.

Whatever you believe about the identity of "Babylon the great," the descriptions reveal her as extravagant, idolatrous, murderous toward believers, and destined for swift and complete destruction, to the astonishment of all who profited from her. The finality of her destruction (18:21 and following) closes this long description and, in my view, answers the question of Jeremiah's prophecy of Babylon's utter desolation (Jeremiah 50:13, 39–40; 51:26, 29, 60–62). The remnant of believers is called out from her midst, echoing Jeremiah: "Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins" (Revelation 18:4; cf. Jeremiah 51:45).

As awful as the description of Babylon's destruction is, it pales beside the lake of fire, the final destination of the dragon, the beast, the false prophet, death and Hades, and all who are not found in the book of life (19:20; 20:10, 14–15; 21:8). We who believe in Jesus Christ are rescued from this awful prospect: "God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son." (1 John 5:11–12).

Rejoice in Christ, dear brothers!

Revelation 19. We are nearing the end of Revelation, and as you may have experienced in class, there is increased debate about the meaning of what John sees. I will try not to engage the debate too much here, but will present my perspective, which I hope you will test for yourselves.

After two chapters describing the sudden destruction of Babylon — pictured as an adulterous harlot and a commercial power that corrupted the whole earth — chapter 19 opens with a celebration of God's justice. Unlike the shock and mourning of the earth's inhabitants, the saints in heaven rejoice because God has "avenged on her the blood of his servants" (19:2), something they had longed for since the fifth seal (6:10). The elders and living creatures join in the "Hallelujah" chorus (literally, "Praise Yah" — "Praise the Lord"). A voice from the throne calls all God's servants, small and great, to praise Him, and an even louder chorus responds (19:6).

In this chorus there is mention of "the Bride," clothed in fine linen, which is "the righteous deeds of the saints" (19:7–8). Who is the Bride? Revelation 21 identifies the Bride with a city: John sees "the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God," prepared as a bride (21:2), and an angel says, "Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb," and shows him the holy city Jerusalem (21:9–10).

The city in Revelation 21 is adorned with gold and precious stones and bears the names of the twelve tribes and the twelve apostles. If the Bride is the new Jerusalem, could the city be adorned in a way that reflects the righteous deeds of the saints who inhabit it? Only those whose names are in the Lamb's book of life will enter it (21:27).

This understanding of the Bride may help with the next verse: "Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb" (19:9). If the Bride is the new Jerusalem, then all believers — Jew and Gentile, slave and free, rich and poor, all whose names are in the book of life — would be among the invited guests, without distinction between Old Testament saints, the church, or tribulation saints. This would be a banquet more fully described in chapters 21–22.

I think this understanding fits Jesus' parable of the wedding feast (Matthew 22:1–14), where those represented are guests and the bride is not identified, and His words about many coming from east and west to recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Matthew 8:11–12). In my view the church is not directly called the "bride" of Christ, although many see it in Ephesians 5:22–33; even there the church is called Christ's body, and to see the church as both body and bride would, I think, mix the metaphors.

We made one more observation from 19:10, where the angel stops John from worshiping him. John was so overwhelmed that he felt compelled to fall at the feet of the one who brought him the revelation. The angel reminds him that he too is only a fellow servant, bearing testimony to Jesus — "For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." John, like many of us, may have been slow to learn, for he does the same again in 22:8–9. We are to worship God alone!

Revelation 19:11–21 describes the second coming of Christ with His armies to conquer the rulers and people of the earth who bear the mark of the beast. A rider on a white horse appears — clearly Jesus. His eyes like a flame of fire recall chapter 1. His "many diadems" represent ultimate authority. He is called "King of kings and Lord of lords." His name is "The Word of God," recalling John 1:1. His robe dipped in blood recalls His death on the cross. "He will rule them with a rod of iron" is messianic language from Psalm 2. He has a name that no one knows but Himself. He is called "Faithful and True." A sharp sword comes from His mouth, again recalling chapter 1. And after the description of the rider, we are told that "an angel" speaks — which suggests the rider is not an angel.

Although the beast gathers the kings of the earth and their armies to make war against the rider and His army, there is hardly a battle. An angel calls the birds to "the great supper of God," where they will feed on the flesh of those very kings and armies. The beast and the false prophet are captured and thrown alive into the lake of fire, and the rest are killed by the sword from the rider's mouth.

Brothers, followers of our conquering King, let us gain confidence to live boldly for Christ in our time, as we look forward to a new heaven and a new earth and a new Jerusalem, where we will live with Christ forever.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The comment rightly notes the three main views of Babylon's identity. A fourth, held by many interpreters, sees "Babylon" as a symbol for the idolatrous world system in every age — first embodied in Rome for John's readers (the "seven mountains" of 17:9 was a familiar description of Rome), but not limited to it. Peter already used "Babylon" as a code name for Rome (1 Peter 5:13). Whatever the referent, Revelation 18's lament is striking for its detail about trade — cargoes of gold, spices, horses, and finally "slaves, that is, human souls" (18:13) — a portrait of a civilization that commodified everything, including people.

On the Bride of the Lamb, the comment presents a minority view with care. Most interpreters identify the Bride with the people of God, noting that the city in Revelation 21 is described through its inhabitants (its gates are the tribes, its foundations the apostles) and that Paul says, "I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:2), echoing Israel's portrayal as God's bride in the prophets (Hosea 2:19–20; Isaiah 54:5). On that reading, the city and the people are one image — the redeemed community as God's dwelling. Both views agree on the joy of 19:9: blessed are all who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.

"For God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose" (Revelation 17:17).

In this short explanation we can see why nothing can succeed against the Lord. As Solomon also observed, "No wisdom, no understanding, no counsel can avail against the Lord" (Proverbs 21:30).

God is in control. If anyone thinks otherwise, God can even direct their thoughts so that they end up carrying out His purpose. Just because God gives His creatures a measure of freedom does not mean they can now challenge the Creator. Unlike everything else, God alone is indestructible.

We are God's people; therefore, if God is for us, nothing can effectively be against us. Paul asks, "If God is for us, who can be against us?" Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? (a paraphrase of Romans 8:31, 33–34).

The logic behind this safety in the Lord is that the very ones who threaten us were also created by God and are subject to His sovereign rule and providence. Isaiah puts it this way: God created the smith who blows the fire of coals and produces a weapon, and He created the ravager to destroy; no weapon fashioned against His people shall succeed, and they shall refute every tongue that rises against them in judgment — this is the heritage of the servants of the Lord (a paraphrase of Isaiah 54:16–17).

God created the blacksmith who forges the weapons. God created the destroyer who uses them to wreak havoc on God's people. So they are all subject to God's sovereign will. That is why He can confidently declare, "No weapon that is fashioned against you shall succeed."

If God is for us, who can be against us?! Even if God allows the destroyer to kill our bodies, they cannot touch our souls. This is what Asaph came to understand when frustrated by the prosperity of the wicked. He says God is continually with him and holds his right hand, guides him with His counsel, and afterward will receive him to glory; whom does he have in heaven but God, and there is nothing on earth he desires besides Him; his flesh and heart may fail, "but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever" (a paraphrase of Psalm 73:23–26).

Asaph understood the awful final destiny of unbelievers. He recognized that as a believer he was not living for the temporary experience of earthly prosperity; he was awaiting eternal glory. This is also why Jesus told His disciples not to fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul, but to fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell; not one sparrow falls to the ground apart from the Father, and even the hairs of our heads are numbered, so we need not fear, for we are of more value than many sparrows (a paraphrase of Matthew 10:28–31).

Friends, our confidence is in a sovereign God who has numbered the very hairs of our heads. We do not serve a God who is merely one half of a yin and yang in some cosmic struggle between equally powerful forces. He stands above all such powers, so that every one of them is subject to His will. No weapon can be forged against Him, because every weapon is under His command. The destroyer cannot seriously challenge Him, because even the destroyer is subject to his Creator.

The real question — perhaps the hardest question — is not how God prevails but why He has fashioned and governed the universe in this way. Why the struggle? Why the suffering, in which He Himself took part? Certainly God could have done everything differently. He could have begun with the heavenly paradise that is now the future hope of every child of God. Why let so many generations stumble over the Law, which could not justify anyone? Since Christians will ultimately be made righteous in Christ, why not decree it directly rather than require the cross? Why tie hope to the preaching of the Gospel by people? It takes time to spread the Gospel, some fail to do it, and many die never having heard it even once.

The "why" is truly hard to grasp, but not the "what" and "how." Even though God's reasons are beyond our discovery, we can still exult in what He has accomplished for us and promised to us. And we know how He is able to do it, and we can have absolute confidence in this: He achieves His will through His sovereign power. As the Contemporary English Version renders the repeated refrain of Psalm 136, "God's love never fails."

AI-Expanded Reflection

Revelation 17:17 is a striking statement in its context. The chapter describes the "great prostitute," Babylon, riding on a beast with ten horns — a picture of worldly power and seduction. The kings who serve the beast eventually turn on the prostitute and destroy her, and John explains why: "God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose," until His words are fulfilled. Evil turns on evil, and God uses even the self-destruction of the world's systems to accomplish His purposes. It echoes the way God used Assyria as "the rod of my anger" while still holding it accountable for its arrogance (Isaiah 10:5–12), and the way He used the betrayal and crucifixion of Jesus, "delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God," while still calling it the work of "lawless men" (Acts 2:23).

The comment's honesty about the "why" questions is worth honoring. Scripture itself does not give a complete philosophical answer to why God permits evil and suffering, but it does give some anchors. God's purposes include a redemption that displays His mercy and justice more fully than a world without the fall would have (Romans 9:22–23; Ephesians 3:10). His people's suffering produces endurance, character, and hope (Romans 5:3–5). And — most importantly, as the comment notes — God did not stand apart from suffering but entered it in Christ. The comment's closing refrain from Psalm 136 is a fitting place to rest: the psalm recounts creation, rescue, wilderness, and conquest, and after every single line comes the same answer, "for his steadfast love endures forever."

The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and yet will come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come (Revelation 17:8).

This is a kind of backhanded evidence for election. It speaks of those that are not elect. They too were known from "the creation of the world." They are spoken of in the process of elimination. In other words, if their name is not in the book of life from the creation of the world, then they are not one of the elect. Now, this does not necessarily negate all freedom of choice for them; however, it does confirm other Scriptures, which demonstrate clearly that no one will choose God apart from God's choosing them (e.g. Romans 3:10–18).

This verse also affirms God's specific predestination of individuals, against those that would espouse some corporate predestination, for "names" signify unique identities. Individual names were written in the Book of Life from the creation of the world. If individuals are so chosen, where is there any room for "free will" in salvation? There is none. While there is possibly free will in condemnation, there is no possibility of it in salvation. Every person that comes to faith has been predetermined to do so from the creation of the world.

All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain (Revelation 13:8, but alternative reading possible: "Lamb who has been slain from the foundation of the world").

He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels (Revelation 3:5).

Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world (Matthew 25:34).

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will (Ephesians 1:4–5).

Friends, why are some people so opposed to the doctrine of election when it is so clearly and fully expounded in Scripture? I can think of a couple of reasons:

(1) Ignorance - These people just don't know the whole counsel of Scripture very well. This is not a bad place to be, for if this is the only hindrance, then after further study of God's Word, they will be enlightened (cf. Romans 10:1).

(2) Arrogance - These people are offended by the notion that they cannot freely choose God. This is a worse place to be, for these people have a too-high view of themselves, so that unless God first humbles them, they will never believe as they ought to believe.

The Bible says that the cross is a stumbling block, particularly to Jews, whose minds were fixed on a merit-based salvation (Romans 9:30–33).

But in what sense did they stumble? They were commanded to obey the Law to achieve right standing with God. It did not dawn on them that this was impossible. Why would God command something that they could not do? But the Law was given to show their inability and to draw them to Christ.

Today, I believe many believers are also stumbling. They are commanded to believe in Jesus to receive right standing with God. Like the Jews, these believers cannot fathom the notion that this is impossible, even though the Bible clearly says that as the cross is a "stumbling block" to Jews, it is "foolishness" to Gentiles (1 Corinthians 1:23). So, in a sense, only fools would believe. Why would God command something that they could not do? But even with respect to faith, people are shown to fall short:

Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:

Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:

He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them.

Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him (John 12:37–41).

But many still stumble over the NT stumbling block of faith, seeing it as a work of free-will, rather than as it truly is, a sovereign gift of God (Ephesians 2:8–9). But those that truly understand will boast in God alone, acknowledging their depravity, which negates not only their ability to achieve good works but even to believe in the Gospel (Romans 10:16–17).

Considering the matter of the bondage of our wills, here is a good reading I came across from a website that I recommend called http://www.monergism.com:

When the question of free will arises, it is imperative that we define our terms very carefully. By “free,” do we simply mean that we make real choices apart from external coercion, or do we mean that we can choose any theoretically possible option, without being necessarily constrained by our natural inclinations, prejudices, and desires? If we mean the former, then the term “free” is unnecessary and misleading, for real choice without external coercion is part of the very definition of “will”. If I make any choice at all, I do so willingly, because it is what I want to do; I am not constrained from the outside, and therefore, I cannot say in my defense, “Something took control of my body and forced me to do what I didn't want to do – I'm not to blame!”. No, whatever I have done, I have done willingly, and I am responsible to God for my actions. But if we mean the latter, that we have the power to choose to do good or evil, to obey God or not to obey him, or at least to believe or disbelieve his gospel, as many people intend to suggest by the term “free will,” then we are in direct contradiction to many scriptures. We are “free” to do what we want to do, but we are bound in what we want by our evil nature and desires. We may do as we please, but we cannot please as we please. We cannot use our will to shape our natures, but rather, our natures determine how we will use our wills. Thus, the bible says very often, and in many different ways, that we are utterly bound in sin. In our flesh, we cannot please God (Rom. 8:5–8), we cannot understand the things of God (1 Cor. 2:14; John 3:3, 10–13; 14:17), we cannot seek God (Rom. 3:11), we cannot believe in God (John 6:44, 65; 10:26; 12:37–41), we cannot do anything good at all (Job 15:14–16; Prov. 20:9; Jer 13:23; Rom. 3:10–18). We are utterly captive to sin (John 8:34; Rom. 6:20; Tit. 3:3), we are prisoners of the devil and constrained to do his desires (John 8:43–45, 2 Tim. 2:25–26; 1 John 5:19), every impulse of the thoughts of our hearts is only evil continually (Gen. 6:5), and so every action we perform, no matter how “good” we think it is, is actually evil, nothing but “filthy rags” (Isa. 64:6). Ever since the fall, we are not free to do anything good whatsoever; and we can only begin to do good as the Spirit gives us a new nature (Ezek. 36:26–27). We are only free when the Son sets us free (John 8:36).

John Calvin has very adeptly expressed these truths in his treatise on the Bondage and Liberation of the Will:

...we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, it should be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choosing. We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it. We deny that choice is free, because through man's innate wickedness it is of necessity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil. And from this it is possible to deduce what a great difference there is between necessity and coercion. For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity will in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a great difference whether the bondage is voluntary or coerced. We locate the necessity to sin precisely in corruption of the will, from which follows that it is self-determined." John Calvin from Bondage and Liberation of the Will, pg. 69–70

AI-Expanded Reflection

Revelation 17:8 places the astonishing power of the beast alongside the book of life. The contrast assures believers that the world’s fascination with destructive power does not determine their ultimate identity. The original rightly sees that the reference to names written from the foundation of the world makes salvation larger than a late human reaction to unfolding events. God’s people are known within a purpose that precedes the beast’s appearance and outlasts his destruction.

The theological conclusion drawn here is distinctly Reformed: apart from God’s prior choosing and enabling, fallen people will not choose him. The supplied discussion of the will distinguishes voluntary action from moral ability. A person may act without external compulsion while still choosing from deeply disordered desires. That distinction is valuable because it explains why this tradition can affirm both human responsibility and dependence on grace. Divine initiative need not be imagined as forcing an unwilling person to trust Christ while leaving the person’s desires unchanged.

The argument also needs to distinguish what a particular verse states from the larger account constructed from several passages. Individual names in the book clearly prevent salvation from being treated as an impersonal abstraction. Yet the presence of individual names does not by itself answer every question debated between individual and corporate accounts of election. Those accounts also differ over the relation of people to Christ, the nature of foreknowledge, and the means through which God brings his people to faith. The original’s position should be assessed through that full argument, rather than through the suggestion that one plural noun removes all interpretive questions.

Similarly, Ephesians 2:8–9 unmistakably denies boasting and attributes salvation to grace. The precise relation between faith and the gift language should be considered in the whole sentence, which presents salvation by grace through faith as originating in God rather than ourselves. John 12 adds the sobering reality of unbelief and judicial hardening, but its narrative must not be flattened into the assertion that human refusal is unreal. John describes people who would not believe and then explains their inability through Isaiah’s words. The theological task is to respect both elements rather than quietly discarding one.

The discussion of the law also benefits from precision. Scripture does expose sin and undermine self-justification; Paul’s argument in Romans 3 excludes boasting through works. Yet the law was given to a people God had already brought out of Egypt, and it should not be described merely as an unsuccessful alternative method of earning redemption. Likewise, Jewish people should not be reduced to a single psychological attitude about merit. Paul’s grief and prayer for Israel accompany his argument, and those affections should shape how Christians discuss the passage.

The original identifies ignorance and arrogance as possible reasons for resisting election. Either can obstruct theological learning, but neither can be assumed to explain every disagreement. Serious Christians who affirm grace and the authority of Scripture reach different conclusions about the relation of election, faith, and freedom. We can state the Reformed case firmly without claiming access to every opponent’s motives. An argument intended to exclude boasting should not become an occasion to boast in superior understanding.

Pastorally, election directs confidence away from the instability of self-reliance and toward God’s mercy in Christ. It is not an invitation to inspect a hidden register before responding to the gospel. The revealed call is to trust Christ, and the same God who purposes salvation uses proclamation, prayer, and personal witness. Gratitude for divine initiative should therefore encourage evangelism and patient care rather than resignation. In Revelation’s setting, the most immediate fruit is steadfast allegiance: the beast’s prestige cannot give life, and the Lamb does not forget those who belong to him.

Revelation 17–18 speak of "the great harlot" and "Babylon the great." Throughout history there have been various interpretations. The most popular historically has been to see these as a reference to Rome. However, more recent scholarship has brought that association into question. I've uploaded two PDF resources to this site that make the case for reading these as a reference to a literal, future Babylon.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The identification of Revelation's "Babylon" remains genuinely contested, and the options extend beyond the two named here. Beyond the traditional Rome identification and the literal-future-Babylon reading this comment favors, other interpreters have read Babylon as a symbol of worldly political and economic power in any era, or, in some readings, as first-century Jerusalem. The name itself is doing deliberate symbolic work regardless of which identification is correct: to a first-century audience, "Babylon" evoked the archetypal empire that destroyed the temple, deported God's people, and demanded idolatrous allegiance, which is precisely the set of associations the chapters go on to develop.