Literal and Symbolic – A Quick Journey through Revelation (2)

Part One

The dragon of Revelation 12 is also seen in chapter 13 where gives his power to the beast (Rev. 13:2), who is himself “a man” (Rev. 13:18).  Likewise, the second beast of Revelation 13, who assists the first beast is identified later in the book as “the false prophet” (Rev. 16:13; 19:20; 20:10). 

Not all of our questions are answered, and sometimes those that are leave us with more questions for which definitive answers elude us, but Scripture is not written to satisfy our curiosity, only to inform us.  In my opinion, the elusive aspect of the book will become far less so as the events themselves come to pass.  I think a good example of this is the correlation between the angel of the bottomless pit (Rev. 9:11) whose name is Abaddon or Apollyon and the beast who “will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition” (Rev. 17:8).    

Fortunately, this is not so in many other cases.  The lampstands are clearly identified by Jesus as churches (hence we ought not to think that these lampstands are Jewish menorahs).  The seven stars in Christ’s hand, stand for seven angels, and the seven lampstands for seven churches.  The stars and the lampstands are symbols, but the enumeration of them (“7”) is seven.  The Two Witnesses of Revelation 11 are best identified by the miracles they perform, which (in a book so pervaded with OT allusions) leads us to Moses and Elijah.^[1]

What about those odd chapters which speak of Babylon (Rev. 17 – 18)?  Is Babylon the ancient city of which the OT Prophets speak? The “Babel” of Genesis 10:10; 11:9?  Revelation 17:18 calls Babylon a “great” city, an adjective that is fastened to the name Babylon each time it appears in Revelation (Rev. 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21).  Fanning believes the weight of the available evidence makes Rome the “Babylon” John has in mind.  Strong arguments in favor of the actual city on the Euphrates by Charles Dyer^[2] and Andy Woods have put forth.  Again, the “woman” who rides the beast is “that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.” (Rev. 17:18).  The beast, as we have seen, is a man.  This indicates that the city (the woman) will have power over the beast for a period of time.  The “kings” in the context would probably be those spoken of in the immediate context (Rev. 17:10).

Whatever interpretation is fixed to the name “Babylon” the fact remains it is depicted as an actual city, and no humdrum city either, but the major world city of the time (Rev. 17:18; 18:10, 16, 18, 19).  In Revelation 17:5 we read of “Mystery, Babylon the great.”  Some believe that the word “mystery” qualifies the name “Babylon” in such a way that it points to something other than a literal city – perhaps a system?  Although how a system can be “utterly burned with fire” (Rev. 18:8) is hard to envisage.  From our present vantage point, it is impossible to be dogmatic about every detail.  The descriptive “the great” appended to the name “Babylon,” and the identification of it as “the great city which reigns over the kings of the earth” (Rev. 17:18), together with it being described as a “dwelling place of demons” (Rev. 18:2)  indicates that “the great city Babylon” is indeed meant.  I see no good reason to strictly divide the city itself from its influence over the world.^[3]

In Revelation 19:11f. the white horse rider is Christ Jesus, “the Lord of Lords and King of Kings” (Rev. 19:16).  He is not to be confused with the white horse rider of Revelation 6:1, even though the earlier rider is like the Lord. 

Then we come to Revelation 20 and the dispute hots up.  Amillennialists insist that the words “Then I saw” (καὶ εἶδον) prove that chapter 20 does not follow on chronologically from chapter 19.^[4]  What is at stake in the decision is the whole interpretation of a chapter (Rev. 20) which gives every appearance of recording the imprisonment of Satan for a thousand years (Rev. 20:1-3), the reign of Christ upon this earth for a thousand years (Rev. 20:4-6), and the loosing of Satan, His ignominious defeat (cf. Gen. 3:15c), and the Final Judgment (Rev. 20:7-15).  If we follow the apparent meaning of the words employed by the apostle, we certainly get a very good segway into the last two chapters.  As Revelation 20 ends we are told that this present cursed earth is gone (Rev. 20:11) and is replaced by “new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away.” (Rev. 21:1).  This, to me, is decisive.  Attempts to disengage Revelation 20 from 21 look like ingenious efforts to get around the obvious.

Once we arrive at Revelation 21 and 22 and the disclosure of New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven to the new earth, we still have to contend with interpreters who wish to persuade us that the New Jerusalem is not literal – it is also just a symbol.  Many of these same scholars want to tell us that the opening chapters of Genesis are figurative and cannot be taken literally.  Forgive me, but it seems that among the thousands of inspired words in the Bible only it is mainly the ones which have to do with their salvation that can be taken literally.  How utterly different this is than the hermeneutics of Abraham in Genesis 22!^[5]       

[1] Although even dispensational authors have posited Moses and Enoch such identification ignores the clues given in the text by the inspired author.  Moses and Elijah appear at the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17) which itself is a preview to Christ’s second coming (2 Pet. 1:16-18).  Moses and Elijah are also (coincidently) the last two men mentioned in our OT.  Enoch, on the other hand, is not given such attention.  Even amillennialist Greg Beale, who turns the two witnesses into the Church, holds that Moses and Elijah are being alluded to in Revelation 11.  See G.K. Beale, Revelation, 582-583.  Cf. Tremper Longman III, Revelation Through Old Testament Eyes, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2022, 169-170.  Longman straddles the fence between two actual prophets or the two witnesses representing the Church, but he does recognize the connections to Moses and Elijah.   

[2] Charles H. Dyer, The Rise of Babylon: Sign of the Times, Chicago: Moody, 2003.

[3] If “Babylon the great” is actual Babylon, then it would appear that a good deal of rebuilding of the city as well as dredging the Euphrates River would still need to be done before it could be described in such terms as the book of Revelation describes it. 

[4] See G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 974-983.  “Does it [i.e., the “and” of 20:1] indicate continued historical sequence following on the heels of 19:21, or does it merely serve as a more general transition between visions?” – Ibid, 975.   

[5] See “The Birth of Isaac and the Hermeneutical Test of Faith” in The Words of the Covenant, Volume One, 138-140.