Category: Prophecy

Q. In Matthew 17:10-13, the disciples were confused about Elijah. They knew of John the Baptist, but had to learn that Jesus was talking about the “spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17), which John represented, not the actual person. Later, in the book of Revelation, Elijah shows up again. Could the same logic apply? That is, could a well-know figure fill this role as Elijah, or do you think that it’s the actual person? Perhaps, we simply don’t know. This could lead to confusion as it did for the disciples.

Elijah is actually not mentioned by name in the book of Revelation. But the two witnesses John sees in his vision are described in terms reminiscent of Elijah and Moses: “They have power to shut up the heavens so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want.” However, this does not mean that these two witnesses will actually be Moses and Elijah, returned to earth as at the time of the Transfiguration, particularly since they are not identified by name. I think instead the idea is that these two “witnesses” will testify as to how the Law (Moses) and the Prophets (Elijah) point to Jesus. That is what the book of Acts describes Paul doing in Rome: “He witnessed to them from morning till evening, explaining about the kingdom of God, and from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets he tried to persuade them about Jesus.” These witnesses will do that on a grander scale, accompanied by works of power as God “confirms his word by the signs that accompany it.” But since Elijah is not identified by name as one of these witnesses, we don’t need to ask whether that is literal or figurative. I think it is most likely that these witnesses will come “in the spirit and power” of Elijah and Moses, without necessarily being those two individuals returned to earth.

Q. Revelation 4:2 says John was “in the Spirit.” Does it mean that the Spirit descended on him, or was he taken up into heaven to witness the vision?

That is an excellent question, but we don’t really know the answer to it. John’s experience seems very similar to one that the apostle Paul had. Speaking of himself as “a man in Christ,” here is what Paul said about his experience:

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body, I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body, I do not know, God knows— and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter.

So it seems that even people who have such experiences aren’t sure whether they were physically brought up into heaven or whether they saw into heaven in a vision. John’s experience seems similar, in that he reports seeing things in heaven firsthand and even being told not to relate some of them. (“When the seven thunders had sounded, I was about to write, but I heard a voice from heaven saying, ‘Seal up what the seven thunders have said, and do not write it down.’”) Here is how John relates the beginning of his own heavenly vision:

After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.” At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne.

So should we place the emphasis on “Come up here,” and understand that John was brought into heaven? Or should we place the emphasis on “I will show you” and “behold,” and understand that John saw these things in a vision? Personally I think we don’t have a clear answer, any more than we do in the case of Paul (or that even Paul himself did). So I conclude that perhaps this isn’t the most important thing for us to understand. What we should understand is that, “whether in the body or out of the body,” John was shown the spiritual workings behind the events of his day so that he could give a clear warning to the believers of his time not to compromise with the emerging cult of emperor worship. In ways that interpreters work hard to understand, John’s warnings also speak to believers throughout history and at the end of history.

It is true that John introduces his heavenly vision by saying that he was “in the Spirit,” but this is not the only place in the book where he says that. To introduce his very first vision, of Jesus exalted in power and glory, he tells his readers that he was “on the island called Patmos” and that he was “in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.” So “in the Spirit” does not seems to be a phrase that indicates being caught up into heaven. Rather, it seems to describe, as you suggest, the Holy Spirit’s special presence with John in order to convey spiritual visions and understanding.

As I discuss in my study guide to Revelation, John uses the phrase “in the Spirit” twice more, and the phrase seems to mark off the major sections of the book of Revelation. This too suggests that we should not understand the phrase to mean “carried off by the Spirit,” but rather something like “inspired by the Spirit.” I hope these thoughts are helpful to you.

Q. Christians are supposed to love everyone, but would that include even the Antichrist mentioned in the book of Revelation? Are Christians supposed to pray for the salvation of everyone, including the Antichrist? Does God love or hate the Antichrist?

I think the answer to your question lies in our understanding of the terms “love” and “hate.” It has been well said that, in a biblical sense, “love is not a feeling, it is a commitment.” Specifically, it is a commitment to act consistently in the best interests of another person.

Conversely, but in a complementary way, in a biblical sense, “hatred is not a commitment, it is a feeling.” As I say in this post, godly hatred is “that feeling of strong antipathy towards anything dishonoring to God that makes us want to have nothing to do with wrongdoing and not join in with wrongdoers. … But if instead we are ‘out to get’ somebody, that is, if we are committed to acting consistently contrary to their best interests, then this is not really ‘hatred’ in the sense that the godly psalmists use the term. It is instead bitterness or vengefulness—something we cannot in good conscience indulge.”

So to speak in light of this to your question, I would say that Christians should not harbor bitter, vengeful feelings even towards the Antichrist. In the best interests of that person, we would still need to oppose his efforts to destroy the worship of Jesus on earth. For his own sake, we would need to try to keep him from doing such a thing that was so opposed to God. (And for the sake of our own Christ-likeness, we should not be bitter or vengeful either.) At the same time, we would need to recognize that the Antichrist had made a series of choices that had led him to become the arch-enemy of Jesus, and that should fill us with a strong antipathy that would make us want to have nothing to do with him or his purposes.

While God knows what is in the depths of the hearts of people, other human beings don’t. Christians have various understandings of how the prophecies in the Bible about the end times will be fulfilled. But suppose, for the sake of discussion, that there were believers alive on earth during the time of the Antichrist. I’m not sure they they would know definitively that this was indeed the Antichrist. For all they knew, with prayer and sacrificial love, this person might turn from the path of opposing Christ. So I would say that, given the limitations of our knowledge as finite humans, we can’t really ever give up on anybody. We should pray for the salvation of everyone, knowing that “God is not willing that any should perish, but wants all to come to repentance.”

We also need to recognize, however, that God has given people the freedom to make moral choices, and that a long series of wrong moral choices may lead a person to the place where he or she becomes definitively opposed to God. But that is something we would recognize only in principle. In the case of any given person, we could not know whether they had reached that point. So we pray with realism but also with hope.

I would say that God loves the Antichrist in the biblical sense I have described: always wanting what would have been the best for him, always wishing that he had made different moral choices. And I would say that God hates the Antichrist in the biblical sense I have described: not wanting to have anything to do with someone who opposes love, peace, and justice to the extent of oppressing people cruelly and even trying to exterminate the worship of his beloved Son.

Q. I adhere to the teachings that Jesus will return at the end of a 7-year tribulation, put an end to this period of increased misery and judgement, reign for 1,000 years, and then, after the final judgement, He will create a new heavens and earth.

If this understanding is correct, what kind of life will those who live during the Millennium experience? Jesus is reigning in Jerusalem. He is living here on earth! Will country- & state-level governments still exist, with budgets & taxes, armies, police, health care, welfare and social security? Will there be businesses, stock markets, and the continued development of new technology? What will we do with our time? After all, He created us to work. Will there be a need for law enforcement, health care & surgery, and poverty alleviation organizations, either like the World Bank or World Vision? Will the drug trade, production of violent films, and sex trafficking finally come to a halt? 

We don’t really know what life will be like once the new heavens & earth are created. (Eye has not seen, nor ear has heard…. ). It is taught that we will come back and live on the new earth (and not stay in heaven). Since no one will die, and He is the Lord who reigns, it seems to me that after the millennium, in Eternity, there will be no more armies, police, health, or businesses centered around sin, either. 

What would an amillennialist say? What will life be like once Jesus returns during His earthly reign? Speaking as student of economics, it seems to be that there will be some massive shifts in the labor market!

Thank you for your excellent and thought-provoking question. Let me begin with the issue of terminology, since you spoke of an “amillennialist,” and not all readers may know what you mean by that.

Christians tend to have one of three understandings of the timing of the return of Jesus in relation to the Millennium, that is, the thousand-year reign of Christ that the Bible describes:

Premillennialists believe that Jesus will return before the Millennium. Implicit in their view is the idea that only the return of Jesus can bring about the changed set of earthly conditions that will characterize his thousand-year reign. So in this view, the Millennium comes over against history. Premillennialists accordingly tend to emphasize evangelism.

Postmillennialists believe that Jesus will return at the end of the Millennium, when, as one theologian put it, he will have something to reign over. Implicit in this view is that the influence of the gospel and the Holy Spirit in the world will bring about a changed set of earthly conditions within history. Postmillennialists accordingly tend to emphasize the socially transforming effects of the gospel.

Amillennialists believe that Jesus will return without a Millennium. They see the biblical description of a thousand-year reign as depicting Jesus’ spiritual reign in heaven or his reign in the hearts of believers. So they see the Millennium as something that happens apart from history. Amillennialists accordingly tend to emphasize worship and sacrament. However, they do believe that there will be a changed set of conditions in the new earth, that is, in the new creation, as you describe.

I actually did much of my doctoral research on this topic, and to state the matter briefly, I find that there is actually some truth in all of these views. Obviously there will either be a Millennium or there won’t, and if there is one, Jesus will come either before or after it. So the views can’t all be right in that sense. But in another sense, it is true that the reign of Christ will come and is coming both against history, within history, and apart from history. So I think that Christians of good will, whatever view they hold, could affirm the truth and the emphases of the other views, seeing themselves as working together with Christians of all persuasions on a comprehensive range of activities that all contribute to God’s ultimate purposes for the world.

And here is the bottom line: We express our faith in the coming reign of Jesus—however we understand the timing of that—by working in our own day towards the things that we believe will characterize his reign. I believe his reign will certainly be characterized by, as you describe, an end to the drug trade, the production of violent films, and sex trafficking. So we should lend our voices and our efforts now to oppose those things. I believe that the reign of Jesus will be a time of peace, health, and prosperity, and we can express our faith in his coming reign by working to end poverty, disease, and conflict. Even if we do not believe that such efforts on their own can bring about millennial conditions without the return of Jesus, we want our master to find us about his business when he returns.

I think the reign of Jesus will be an active time, as you also suggest. We won’t be sitting around doing nothing. There will be new discoveries, new inventions, new ways being worked out of living as a more just, fair, prosperous, and peaceful human community. I believe we will also have greater spiritual insights. (Jonathan Edwards, on whom I wrote my dissertation, wrote that during the Millennium, people from different groups all over the world would write excellent theological treatises imparting new insights to all believers.)

I think this perspective of the Millennium as an active time also has implications for us today. Jesus is going to want his people to be doing certain kinds of things during his reign—active, energetic, positive, productive things. And he is going to want to find us already doing those things when he returns. So, as another Puritan theologian, John Owen, put it, “Up and be doing, ye who are about the work of the Lord!”

So it’s a great question for all of us: What do you think things will be like during the Millennium? How can you express your faith in that today?

Q. Why does the Bible prophesy that Jesus will be a Nazarene?

The first thing I need to say in response to your question is that the Bible actually did not prophesy that Jesus would be a Nazarene. Not in so many words, at least.

Matthew tells us in his gospel that after Jesus and his parents returned from Egypt, they settled in Galilee. Matthew then notes, “There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He will be called a Nazarene.'” However, there is no such statement anywhere in any of the prophetical books.

So what’s going on here? This is actually an indirect quotation, not a direct one. Many English translations show that by punctuating Matthew’s statement this way: “And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene.”

It seems that Matthew, in his appeal to the prophets, is actually summarizing their many statements that the servant of God would be “despised and rejected.” It appears that the term “Nazarene” had become a geographic term of derision. We may compare it to the term “Okie” that people in the United States used during the Dust Bowl years. It described people from Oklahoma and nearby areas affected by prolonged drought who migrated West in search of work and food. The word ceased to mean “someone from Oklahoma” and came to mean something closer to “gypsy.” Similarly, “Nazarene” at the time of Jesus meant more than “someone from Nazareth.” It was a term of derision, as we see in Nathanael’s question upon hearing about Jesus, “Can anything good come from Nazareth?”

So the Bible did prophesy, in general terms at least, that Jesus would be a “Nazarene” in the sense of someone people looked down on and called by a derisive name. Your question was why the Bible prophesied that, and this was one of many ways in which the prophets indicated that the Messiah would first suffer and only then enter into his glory. Jesus himself said that that was the message of all that the prophets had spoken.

Q. God said through Jeremiah: “This is what the Lord says, he who appoints the sun to shine by day, who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night … Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,” declares the Lord, “will Israel ever cease being a nation before me.” But there are many portions of Scripture that say that the sun, moon, and stars someday will cease to shine. So, my question is, when will Israel cease from being a nation? Can you help me understand the context and time frame in which this will happen, assuming it will happen? 

Personally I would not connect what God says through Jeremiah in this passage with the larger question of how God’s covenant promises to Israel relate to the culmination of God’s redemptive purposes in the coming of Jesus and the creation of the church as a covenant community composed of people from all nations. I believe that God is speaking here to the Israelites within the context of their own lives and experience. And within that experience, the sun, moon, and stars effectively will not cease to shine. And so God is able to appeal to their endless duration (endless from a human perspective) as a guarantee for the promises he is making.

This statement comes within a longer passage whose overall concern is the return of the Israelites from exile. It begins: “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Write in a book all the words I have spoken to you. The days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will bring my people Israel and Judah back from captivity and restore them to the land I gave their ancestors to possess,’ says the Lord.” The concern at the time was that Israel would indeed cease to be a nation: Its exiled people would be dispersed throughout large empires, they would never return home, and their identity would be lost. God is promising that that will never happen, and to guarantee that promise, he is appealing to something else that, within the framework of the people’s experience, would never happen either. This approach is sometimes described as “divine condescension,” with the word “condescension” not used in a negative sense, but to mean that God graciously and generously relates to us within the context of our own experience.

I think there is a comparable example in Psalm 72. That psalm is a prayer for the king of Israel, perhaps meant to be offered for each new king as he takes the throne. It says, in part: “Endow the king with your justice, O God, the royal son with your righteousness. May he judge your people in righteousness, your afflicted ones with justice. … May he endure as long as the sun, as long as the moon, through all generations.” Clearly this reference to the sun and the moon is not meant to specify a time period of limited duration on the basis that the sun and moon will not endure forever. After all, the poetic parallel to that reference is “through all generations.” Instead, this is the equivalent of the expression we see in several other places in the Bible, “May the king live forever!” The reference is just being made within the framework of an earthly perspective.

So what God really wanted to say through Jeremiah to the Israelites was that they would not be dispersed in exile at that time and lose their identity as a nation. God was promising, in terms they could understand, that he would never let that happen. And he did not. God brought them back from exile and re-established them in the same land in which they had been living. From there, God fulfilled his promise to send the Messiah, Jesus.

As I said at the beginning, I feel it is a separate question how God’s covenant promises to Israel relate to the culmination of God’s redemptive purposes in the coming of Jesus and the creation of the church as a covenant community composed of people from all nations. Christians of good will, with equal commitments to the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, give different answers to that question, and there would not be room in this post even to give a brief sketch of the range and scope of those answers. But I think we can say with assurance both that God will fulfill all of his covenant promises to Israel and that God wants the community of the redeemed to be “a great multitude that no one can count, from every nation, tribe, people and language.”

Q. Why did God reveal future events to Nebuchadnezzar?

Here is what I say about that in my study guide to Daniel and Revelation. (You can read the guide online or download it for free at this link.)

– – – – –

(p. 28, about Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the statue) Nebuchadnezzar was wondering about the future of his empire. (Daniel notes, “As Your Majesty was lying there, your mind turned to things to come.”) The take-home message of the dream is that his empire isn’t going to last forever. In fact, in the foreseeable future it will be overrun by a rival empire. Daniel’s task, as God’s representative, is to challenge Nebuchadnezzar to accept this fact and humble himself before the “Lord of kings.”

(p. 30, about the statue that Nebuchadnezzar built) God gave Nebuchadnezzar an inspired dream about a statue made of different materials. The interpretation was that the Babylonian empire (the statue’s head of gold) wouldn’t last forever; instead, it would ultimately be replaced by a kingdom that the “God of heaven” would set up. When Nebuchadnezzar first heard Daniel interpret his dream, he was so amazed that he “fell prostrate before” him and “paid him honor.” But now he’s had a change of heart. He makes a statue entirely out of gold, to assert—in the language of the dream, and directly contradicting God’s word—that his empire will last forever. He gathers provincial officials from all over his empire and demands that they “fall down” and “worship” this statue. (These are exactly the same Aramaic words used to describe what Nebuchadnezzar did for Daniel; the king wants his empire to be on the receiving end this time!)

(pp. 31–32, same episode) Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego tell the king that if their God is able to deliver them, he will, but that even if he doesn’t, they won’t serve the Babylonian gods or worship the statue. Their obedience wasn’t conditional on their deliverance. Nebuchadnezzar recognizes this and praises them for being “willing to give up their lives rather than serve or worship any god except their own God.” … In Daniel’s song of praise in the previous story, he said that “wisdom and power” belonged to God. When Daniel interpreted Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, the king acknowledged God as a “revealer of mysteries”—a God of wisdom. Now he acknowledges that this God has “rescued his servants” and must also be a God of power. He forbids anyone in his empire to say anything against “the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.”

– – – – –

So, to answer your question, God revealed future things to Nebuchadnezzar to get him to realize that his empire would not last forever so that he would humble himself and acknowledge God as the true ruler of the world.

Q. I just read an article on Politico.com about contemporary prophets who are predicting that Donald Trump will become president again by the spring of this year, 2021, several years before he could actually be re-elected. 1. I know that Paul speaks of prophecy as a gift, but I don’t understand the need for prophets since the death of Christ. Wasn’t “the Word made flesh” so that we don’t need prophets? Didn’t God reveal all that we need to know? 2. I know that Old Testament prophets sometimes made prophetic statements about rulers but I thought that, for the most part, their prophecies focused on God’s people and their relationship with Him. It seems somewhat ungodly to think that God would be prophetically involved in micro-politics in our country. 3. Are there any instances in the OT of prophets being incorrect? If not, is it possible that Scripture only records their hits and omits their strikeouts? If not, then should we conclude that any modern-day prophet who strikes out is not really a prophet? If so, is there any modern-day prophet who is batting 1.000? (Or, to continue the metaphor, do you get a couple of swings and misses – and maybe foul balls – but aren’t out until you reach a certain number of misses?)

Let me respond to your first, third, and second questions in that order.

As for your first question, I personally believe that the gift of prophecy remains active in the church today. I do not believe that any prophecies since the New Testament was completed have added anything to the revelation in Scripture, but I do believe that God still speaks through spiritually gifted and sensitive people to bring inspired messages to groups of believers that need guidance, challenge, and encouragement. So in one sense, yes, through the incarnation of the Word of God in Jesus, and the completion of the written word of God in the Scriptures, God has given us everything we need for life and godliness. In another sense, there is still a need for groups of believers to hear what God is saying to them about specific situations they are facing, and it is the ongoing role of prophets to speak that word.

But this immediately raises the question of how we can know whether such contemporary prophets are truly speaking from God, instead of from themselves, likely under various influences. This relates to your third question. Wouldn’t a genuine prophet get things right, at least a credible amount of the time? And prophets generally hold themselves to this standard. The article you cited quoted one person who had predicted that Donald Trump would win the 2020 presidential election as saying, on the day that Joe Biden was declared the winner, “I take full responsibility for being wrong. There was no excuse for it. I think it doesn’t make me a false prophet, but it does actually create a credibility gap.” Others quoted in the article go further. One self-described prophet said, of those who are still insisting in February 2021 that Trump will soon return as president, “This has opened the door to outright delusion. … I’ll say we’ve earned the world’s mockery for our foolishness.” So yes, we should expect that any genuine prophet would have a strong track record for accuracy and truth. The Bible itself specifies this same standard: “If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously.” I think we could still have much respect, however, for a prophet who got something wrong but then admitted that promptly and humbly.

Q. I’ve heard that there is a reference in the Bible to a sort of “second-chance glorious period of prosperity” for “mystery Babylon,” and that this may be referring to the USA. If so, where is that reference?

The reference in the Bible to “mystery Babylon” is in Chapter 17 of the book of Revelation. However, there are several problems with the interpretation that you have heard of this reference.

First, “mystery” is not part of the name of this place. The statement should be translated, “On her forehead a name was written, a mystery: ‘Babylon the great, the mother of prostitutes and the vile things of the earth.'” Most modern Bibles translate the statement this way. It is saying that the name has a secret meaning that needs to be figured out.

Second, nothing in the depiction of this “Babylon” indicates any kind of “second chance” or “prosperity.” The book of Revelation says repeatedly that God has judged and is about the punish the entity being depicted under this symbolic name.

And finally, there is no compelling reason to associate this “Babylon” with the USA or any contemporary nation. In the original context of the book of Revelation, as I will explain shortly, this is a symbolic reference to the Roman Empire as a persecutor of Christians. In later times, particularly as history nears its culmination, there may be a further fulfillment of this image. But we cannot say with any precision now whether history is nearing its culmination, or what that further fulfillment may be.

I will quote below from the section in my study guide to the book of Revelation that discusses this passage, after quoting from another section that explains the interpretive approach that I take to the book. (You can read the whole study guide online or download it at this link.) I hope that all of this helps to address your question.

Comments about interpreting Revelation

The book of Revelation is interpreted in four major ways. The futurist
approach understands it to be a description of the events of the “end times,” at the end of human history. (Works like the novels and movies in the Left Behind series follow this approach.) The historicist view sees the book as a prediction of the whole course of history, from Jesus and the apostles down through the present to the end of the history. The idealist interpretation is that Revelation depicts the struggles and triumphs that followers of Jesus will experience everywhere, but it doesn’t have any particular place or time in view. The preterist approach is to try to understand the book by reference to the time and place it was written in—western Asia Minor towards the close of the first century. This study guide will consistently pursue a preterist interpretation. If this is new for you, and you’re used to hearing the book treated differently, please keep an open mind and look for the potential benefits of this approach.

Comments about the vision of Babylon

The fall of Rome (“Babylon the Great”) has been announced; the book of Revelation now zooms in on this event to depict it in more detail. This depiction forms a distinct section within the book. It’s marked off at its beginning and end by interactions that John has with one of the angels who had the seven bowls. John says once again that he’s “in the Spirit,” meaning that he’s receiving a new vision, this time in “a wilderness.” (His long vision of heavenly worship and divine judgments will conclude after this section.)

This vision of the “fall of Babylon” makes the audacious claim that Rome, then at the height of its power, will collapse. Rome will be judged for its emperor worship, and for its persecution of God’s people, but also for its addiction to luxury and self-indulgence and how this has affected the rest of the world.

Rome is depicted as a “great prostitute.” This is a literal reference to the city’s immorality, and a figurative reference, using a common Scriptural motif, to its idolatry. The details of the portrait are intended to identify the guilty city and emperor.

Some details are transparent. John’s audience would have clearly understood “the great city that rules over the kings of the earth” to mean Rome. The famous “seven hills” that the city sits on reinforce this identification. Other details can be understood in light of the symbolism in Revelation and its Scriptural background.

The “beast” that “once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction” is likely a depiction of  the persecuting spirit of Nero that has come back to life in the person of Domitian. The emperor’s pretensions to divinity are being parodied by contrast to the true God, who “was, and is, and is to come.” The “ten horns” are explained as “ten kings,” likely symbolizing all of the rulers under Rome’s authority (ten being a number of completeness). At first these rulers will be loyal to Rome, but they will then turn against the city and help destroy it, as depicted in this vision. They’ll do this under the influence of the “beast,” the spirit of empire gone bad, which to this point has been the force behind Rome and its persecuting emperor, but which will abandon the city in the end. The beast itself will be destroyed when Jesus “judges” it “with justice.”

The biggest puzzle in the portrait is the identity of the “seven heads” that
represent “seven kings.” As he did for the number of the beast, John says that this “calls for a mind with wisdom,” meaning that there’s some kind of twist to the puzzle—some key to how the kings (apparently Roman emperors) are being counted. Unfortunately, a straightforward solution to this puzzle has not yet been identified. Interpreters offer a variety of explanations. But in some way John is trying to portray the persecuting emperor as the culmination of imperial arrogance (seven being a number of totality), which then takes a further step into satanic evil as the emperor becomes “the beast,” “an eighth king.”

In whatever way its individual details are interpreted, the vulgar image
of “Babylon,” the “great prostitute” reveals that Rome, despite its wealth, splendor, and pretensions, has been corrupting the world and is “drunk with the blood of God’s people.” It fully deserves the judgment it is about to receive.