Revelation; Harlot Babylon (pt4)- "Drunk with the blood of the saints)

I want to offer some thoughts, once again, on the Harlot of Babylon from Revelation ch17, this time with special reference to the observations made in v6.
For reasons which will become clear, this verse was postponed until I'd finished considering the other aspects of her character.

But now I'm going to be asking the question; why is this woman "drunk with the blood of the saints"?

We know from the previous chapters in Revelation that the Beast has a war on the saints, and "causes men to be slain".
We're now learning from this verse that the woman shares the blame for the martyrdoms, but we're not told exactly what part she plays.
Perhaps the connection would have been more evident to John's first readers, in the church of his own time, because they would have matched this image against their own experiences.
So the best plan seems to be to draw upon the same experiences while reviewing the various aspects of this woman, hoping to understand the different kinds of contribution she could be making.

"Twinned with Rome"
(N.B. This is a link as well as a heading)

I've considered this woman in terms of "the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth". In that capacity, she "rests upon" the Beast as an imperial capital resting upon the imperial power.
Inasmuch as she represents the metropolis,the centre of the Beast's realm, she would therefore be at the centre of everything that the Beast does. Including the deaths of Chrstian martyrs, if that was what the Beast was doing.

Certainly, in the experience of the church of John's time, their tribulation really began with events in Rome. It was the burning of Rome, in A.D.64 which propmpted Nero to blame the Christians as a way of deflecting criticism away from himself
Rome therefore became a place where many Christians died, in horrific ways.
It seems likely that the first readers of Revelation would have identified these victims with the martyrs seen "under the altar" in ch6, waiting impatiently for God to avenge their blood.

Similarly, if Revelation offers us a future vision of the Beast, the metropolis of the Beast's empire would be at the heart of everything the Beast was doing, and would be participating in everything that the power of the Beast was doing, including "causing the saints to be slain".

"The other woman"
(N.B This is a link as well as a heading)

I've considered this woman in terms of the unfaithfulness of God's people.
Inasmuch as she represents the "unfaithful wife" so frequently depicted in the prophets, the image implies a connection between her unfaithfulness and the deaths of the more faithful servants of God.

Connections can certainly be found in the experience of the church of John's time.
From the viewpoint of the early Christians, it was the Jews who were failing in their obedience towards God.
And the breach with the Jewish community had serious repercussions for their own relationship with outsiders.

For one thing, Christians were soon gaining a reputation for dark and mysterious deeds. This was partly because they were meeting behind closed doors (and outsiders were using their imaginations about what was happening).
But it was also, partly, because the Jews were spreading scurrilous stories about them, as Justin Martyr complains;
"You selected and sent out from Jerusalem chosen men through all the land to tell that the godless heresy of the Christians had sprung up, and to publish those things which they who know us not speak against us"- Justin Martyr, "Dialogue with Trypho", ch17
As a result, by the time of the great fire in Rome, the Christian community were already "hated for their vices", in the words of Tacitus, which made them natural and convenient scapegoats, and suitable victims.

There was also the question of the legal status of Christianity.
The Jewish faith was a "licensed religion" (RELIGIO LICITA). This meant that they were exempt from taking part in the imperial cult, which was otherwise expected from the empire in general. (In that capacity, they could be regarded as "resting upon"" the Beast, the imperial power).
But if the Christians were not part of the Jewish community, they were not "licensed", and they were not exempt.
In the early days, Roman officials may have been slow to realise that a new group was emerging.
But if the Jews drew the Christians to their attention, and helped them to understand the distinction, they would be more likely to take legal action.
That would explain why the letter to Smyrna, in ch2, speaks of "the slanders of the Jews" in close proximity to the warning that "the devil is about to throw some of you into prison".

If Revelation offers us a future vision of the Beast, could the "unfaithful" portion of the Christian community endanger the more "faithful" in a similar way?
I've suggested, elsewhere, that the Beast would be able to find people, even within the churches, willing to compromise with him, to work with him, and to accept his claims.
(I thought the "one-third of the stars of heaven", drawn down by the tail of the dragon at the beginning of ch12, might be an indicator of the approximate proportion)
It only remains to add the supposition that the "compromising" church people would also be prepared to give information to the authorities about their brethren and former brethren who were attempting to maintain the old faith. They would thus have a share in the responsibilty for whatever action was then taken by the authorities.

"Mother of abominations"
(N.B. This is a link as well as a heading)

I've considered this woman in terms of the attraction of other religions, symbolised by the cup "full of abominations"- in other words, full of idolatry.
The dwellers on the earth have been "made drunk" from the same cup.
This woman is now, herself, described as "drunk".
But if she's "drunk with the blood of the saints", the clear implication is that this blood is very closely associated with the contents of her own cup. That is to say, with her idolatry.
Inasmuch as this woman represents the multi-religious culture of the age, she also represents that culture's intolerance of non-participation.

This was certainly a very important factor in the experience of the early church.
Christians were setting themselves apart by refusing to take part in the worship of other gods.
Of course they were an offshoot of the Jews, who were already despised as atheists for exactly the same reason.
Hostility was sometimes prompted by self-interest, as when Demetrius and the other silver-smiths roused their fellow-citizens against Paul, in the name of "Diana of the Ephesians".
But the real driving-force was the fear of the gods themselves.
The gods controlled the natural world; they had the power, if they were offended, to bring natural disasters upon the world.
If the Christians were neglecting the gods, the gods would surely be offended.
So the Christians could be blamed, and were increasingly blamed, whenever there were natural disasters like floods, droughts, or earthquakes. As Tertiullian later complained, there would be a cry of "Send them to the lions".

Thus the actions taken by the Roman authorities were often prompted by the complaints or anger of the local community. Religion-based hostility using the machinery of the state. "Resting upon the Beast".

If Revelation offers us a future vision of the Beast, could there be a future version of this kind of hostility?
The Christian church is already, increasingly, living in the setting of a multi-religious culture.
But a number of other developments would be necessary, to match the circumstances of John's time.
In the first place, they would need to be a minority, in a culture where the other religions were more dominant.
Then there would need to be an activity of some kind, in which the church (on the one hand) would refuse to participate, while the dominant culture (on the other hand) would refuse to tolerate non-participation.
This was the kind of irreconcilable collision which brought conflict between the church and the Roman world, and could bring conflict between the church and a later world.


(continued in Supplementary post)

SUPPLEMENTARY

There would need to be an activity of some kind, in which the church (on the one hand) would refuse to participate, while the dominant culture (on the other hand) would refuse to tolerate non-participation.

Once again, I''m deferring these additional, more speculative, comments to a supplementary post.
I just wanted to put forward a possible example of the way the above might work.
It starts with "environmentalism".
Bear with me.
In the first place, concern for the environment is becoming more prevalent in our culture. It is becoming a kind of "background" belief.
It is not yet really a "religion", but belief in the power of "nature" begins to approach the worship of the gods of nature which was dominant in the Roman world.
And also, a very crucial point, there are signs of unwillingness to tolerate non-participation. As anyone might discover who tries to deny Global Warming.

But the other conditions are still missing. It is not yet a dominant religion, making demands which are incompatible with the Christian faith.
But if concern about the environment, at a later date, had reason to develop into panic, then environmentalism could become much more dominant, and also, at the same time, rather more "religious" in character (perhaps in combination with personification of the concept of Gaia).
In those very hypothetical circumstances, the world might find it necessary to insist on some practice (such as a weekly, global, "mind-melding with Gaia", guaranteed to stave off earthquakes and floods) in which the Christians could not participate. And if the earthquakes and floods continued to happen anyway, the obvious conclusion would be that this was the fault of the abstainers. Consequences would follow.

I am, of course, using my imagination here. It is an attempt, perhaps plausible, to envision the kind of conditions in which the persecution which the Christians faced under the Roman Empire could be re-created.

This is how Tertullian describes the kind of public hostility which is the subject of the last section of the OP;

You insist on our being the causes of every public calamity or injury. If the Tiber has overflowed its banks, if the Nile has remained in its bed, if the sky has been still, or the earth has been in commotion, if death has made its devastations, or famine its afflictions, your cry immediately is; "This is the fault of the Christians!"...
I suppose it is as despisers of your gods that we call down these strokes of theirs...
You incur the chastisement of your gods because you are too slack in our extripation
Tertullian- "Ad Nationes", ch9

Tertullian also points out a flaw in the logic.
If the gods are really angry at the neglect of the Christians, why are they also punishing everybody else?
Why don't they limit their punishment to the guilty parties themselves?

Very thought provoking as always, Disraeli. Kudos to you for your hard work and dedication to this topic

One thing to consider very carefully is John's amazement. I think this weighs in very much when trying to figure these passages out and weigh these matters.

"I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of God’s holy people, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus. When I saw her, I was greatly astonished. Then the angel said to me: “Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns." (NIV) Rev 17:6-7
www.biblegateway.com...

One thing that weighs heavy here is what would make John "greatly astonished". It would have to be that the woman would be an identity that he did not expect. Whom would be the "usual suspects" that would not astonish John? Eliminate them, then go from there.

reply to post by thegoodearth

Thank you for those comments.
I suppose another way to understand the astonishment is to observe that it comes before he starts receiving any explanation, so it might just be amazement at the oddity of the figure.

I think I can guess what solution you would propose. As you can see, I allowed for that as one of the options without going all the way with it.

reply to post by DISRAELI


No, truly, I am open to anything, though it is something to explore thoroughly.
He is "greatly astonished". That is strong language used and I think it is significant.
Plus the angel also addresses his amazement.
I think this point being made so vociferously is something that we need to heed in looking at the
Harlot.
I really am not 100% set in my theory, however, I do not think that Rome is it.

It is almost as though John himself had a set idea and the angel had to show him why he was wrong...
if you read the text in context...

reply to post by thegoodearth

Now that you've stirred up my curiosity on the point, I'm going to look up other references to the same adjective/verb, to see if the usage elsewhere throws any light on the point.
If I come up with anything interesting, I'll report back.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Sweet-
I'll be glad to hear your thoughts as I am curious too as
to what you think on this.

reply to post by thegoodearth

I'm afraid the results of the search are a little inconclusive, at the moment.

First point; simply taking the scene by itself, the most natural interpretation seems to me to be that John is simply puzzled- "this is a mind-blowing picture, I don't know what's going on" puzzlement.
I get that impression partly from the angel's reaction; in effect, it is "Don't be puzzled; I'm going to explain it all"

Looking around the other NT references; yes, they all seem to be about surprise, something which was unexpected is being either said or done..As in Paul being astonished at the Galatians, and Jesus telling Nicodemus not to be astonished. So this points to surprise. But arguably just seeing a woman sitting on a beast in the middle of the waters is surprising enough in itself, if you didn't know it was going to be there.

Perhaps the most important example, because it's another Revelation use of the word, is Revelation ch13 v3. The literal translation of the Greek would be "The whole earth wondered [same Greek verb] after the Beast". This is surely about what the Beast does that is great or unexpected. So I wouldn't rule out your suggestion, but I still think that "I found it mind-blowing" has a slight edge.

reply to post by DISRAELI


I understand a little hesitance in jumping on this.
I am not trying to cherry pick here, either. I don't like others that do that.
I hear what you are saying and am considering it, seriously.

I have studied John's writings a lot, and this is the thing, too,
John had a writing style that was quite different than the other NT writers.
So, to compare and contrast with Paul or others may not be the best course
of action.

Compare John to John.
The Nicodemus reference is in John's gospel. That is relevent. Ironically, this is a passage that has caused contention for years and years.

Originally posted by thegoodearth
John had a writing style that was quite different than the other NT writers.
Compare John to John.

Good point.
But then there's the debate about how many Johns there were. I'm not expert enough in NT Greek to be able to judge, but people say there's a difference between the Greek styles of the Gospel and Revelation. Revelation is supposed to be rougher and full of Hebraisms (which is just what you might expect from a Jew to whom Greek was a second language). While the Greek style of the Gospel is supposed to be more polished. Written by someone who got his information from John?

Leaving that point aside. Let's take Nicodemus. He was told that people need to be born again, which put into his mind the idea of returning to the mother's womb.
Was this astonishing because he was expecting something different? (E.g. "Observe closely these passages in the scriptures"?)
Or simply because the idea was strange, a variation from the norm, and so unexpected for that reason?

In Revelation ch13 v3, the world "wonders after the Beast".
Because they were expecting something different? I can't really see it.
Surely, in that case, it's because what the Beast is doing is great and strange, a variation from the norm.

In the case of the Harlot, the choice is between "This is not the one I expected" and "This thing is great and strange, a variation from the norm", and the precedent of ch13 encourages the second interpretation.

If you want to know what it is that John finds astonishing, look at what the angel chooses to explain. The angel says "Don't be astonished, [i.e.I will deal with your astonishment]"- and what does he do then? He tells John all about the Beast. Apart from the one verse at the end, he says virtually nothing about the identity of the Harlot.
This sugests to me that John is being astonished not so much by the identity of the Harlot, as by the relationship between the Harlot and the Beast.

Excellent post and followup, Disraeli. Always nice to see someone who actually does some research and thinking about deep passages like this, as opposed to, oh, I don't know, the "self" "thinkers" that just randomly spew forth proclamations and prognostications without even understanding basic concepts. S & F, thanks.

I was reading something this morning about the schism that occurred between James and Paul, with Peter in the middle, and the perspective that this writer brought was John argued for the settled compromise (regardless of Christ, a Jew is a Jew and a Gentile is a Gentile,) less for any theological reason, than to preserve the integrity of Israel. He saw both Jew and Christian Jew as part of the same group, but Paul's inclusion of the Gentile was splitting those two groups apart at a time when they needed to be unified to preserve the Roman special dispensation, granted to the Jews.

That's not the way that things worked out, of course, but it can be argued that by the time this split occurred, the majority of Jews who would convert already had, and Paul and Barnabas' culturing of the Gentile had only just begun. By the time Nero came around, their refusal to worship the Emperor, combined with the notion that these weren't Jews, and not entitled to say "no", made them an easy target.

Though I had never really thought of it in the same manner as the author portrayed, it definitely makes a bit of sense.

Originally posted by adjensen
the perspective that this writer brought was John argued for the settled compromise (regardless of Christ, a Jew is a Jew and a Gentile is a Gentile,) less for any theological reason, than to preserve the integrity of Israel. He saw both Jew and Christian Jew as part of the same group, but Paul's inclusion of the Gentile was splitting those two groups apart at a time when they needed to be unified to preserve the Roman special dispensation, granted to the Jews.

Thank you for those comments.
What evidence was the writer bringing forward that this was John's line of argument?
It doesn't strike me as the most obvious way of looking at John's viewpoint, especially considering the way "The Jews" is used in the Gospel.
An interesting line of thought- but where is the writer getting it from?

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by adjensen
the perspective that this writer brought was John argued for the settled compromise (regardless of Christ, a Jew is a Jew and a Gentile is a Gentile,) less for any theological reason, than to preserve the integrity of Israel. He saw both Jew and Christian Jew as part of the same group, but Paul's inclusion of the Gentile was splitting those two groups apart at a time when they needed to be unified to preserve the Roman special dispensation, granted to the Jews.

Thank you for those comments.
What evidence was the writer bringing forward that this was John's line of argument?
It doesn't strike me as the most obvious way of looking at John's viewpoint, especially considering the way "The Jews" is used in the Gospel.
An interesting line of thought- but where is the writer getting it from?

edit on 6-12-2010 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

Not a clue, but the book is a work of "historical fiction" (aka: "I filled in the gaps with things that seem to fit") so it may or may not be based on legitimate interpretation of John's writings or one of his followers. I read a non-fiction book once about the Apostles, with one chapter about each, and remember commenting about what a stretch it would be for anyone other than Peter, James, John, Judas and a couple of others, as some of the Twelve barely get a mention in the NT. That was, indeed the case.

Anyhoo, the book is: Paul: A Novel by Walter Wangerin Overall, I like the book, but then again, overall, I like Paul

reply to post by adjensen

Thank you for that link. I might explore Mr Wangerin a little further, if time permits.
Yes, I've always been a history reader myself. Relatives used to see this as a reason to give historical fiction, but they're never quite the same thing.
I was wondering how the author was going to get past comments like "synagogue of Satan"- but if it was a work of fiction, he doesn't have to.

I thoroughly approve of liking Paul, though we know some who would disagree.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
I thoroughly approve of liking Paul, though we know some who would disagree.

I know a lot of people who dislike him, but I've yet to hear anyone provide me with a lucid reason why, apart from a couple who aren't fond of his perspective on women in the Church. But he's a bit contradictory in that area (he certainly seems respectful of more than a few women,) and I put some of the more offputting remarks to being more indicative of the time and culture that he lived in than any real theological prison.

That said, for those who say that he corrupted Christianity or granted a "license to sin", they make it abundantly clear that they've never really read Paul's Epistles, because he does no such thing.

I've not read any of Wangerin's books, but he's a good writer, and I'll likely hunt another one or two up after I finish this one.

reply to post by DISRAELI


I have been thinking about this deeply- sorry I haven't posted sooner.
In my thinking, I was led to look at the Harlot in an entirely different way
than I have before.

I would like to propose an idea, with Scripture, of another identity of the Harlot,
one you may have already considered and discarded.

Perhaps I have been looking at this all with too narrow a view.

Perhaps the Harlot is Earth. Babylon is the Earth, itself, and its inhabitants are the city dwellers...

Look at the following with that theory in mind...
I thought of this in my reading in Adoration, however, this may be an idea out there already,
I didn't look anywhere to see if it is, but since every theory whatsoever has been proposed, I would imagine this to be one by somebody.
In light of the Harlot being "drunk with the blood of the saints", look at the way the passages really read. It seems as though the entire Earth is the grounds on which the blood of the saints has been poured, therefore, perhaps the Harlot is the entire world.
I am cringing as I type, but I wondered if you had considered this at all.

Rev 16:1 Then I heard a loud voice from the temple, saying to the seven angels, "Go and pour out on the earth the seven bowls of the wrath of God."

Rev 16:4-6 Then the third angel poured out his bowl into the rivers and the springs of waters; and they became blood.
And I heard the angel of the waters saying, "Righteous are You, who are and who were, O Holy One, because You judged these things; for they poured out the blood of saints and prophets, and You have given them blood to drink. They deserve it."

Who "deserves" it? It appears it is mankind who does, in reading this.

Rev 18:21-24 Then a strong angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, "So will Babylon, the great city, be thrown down with violence, and will not be found any longer.
"And the sound of harpists and musicians and flute-players and trumpeters will not be heard in you any longer; and no craftsman of any craft will be found in you any longer; and the sound of a mill will not be heard in you any longer; and the light of a lamp will not shine in you any longer; and the voice of the bridegroom and bride will not be heard in you any longer; for your merchants were the great men of the earth, because all the nations were deceived by your sorcery.
"And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints and of all who have been slain on the earth.

Again, the blood of the prophets and the saints, all who have been slain on earth, found in Babylon, the great city. How can this be possible unless we look at this differently?

Rev 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.”

Is 65:17 For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth;
And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind.

These two passages also call to mind Jesus' words when He says, the world will pass away, but not My Word.

Is 21:9 Now behold, here comes a troop of riders, horsemen in pairs."
And one said, "Fallen, fallen is Babylon;
And all the images of her gods are shattered on the ground."

The many gods revealed in the below passage, perhaps? The ones that mankind are worshiping, not any specific "group".

Rev 9:20-21 The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands, so as not to worship demons, and the idols of gold and of silver and of brass and of stone and of wood, which can neither see nor hear nor walk;
and they did not repent of their murders nor of their sorceries nor of their immorality nor of their thefts.

Rev 13: 3-4 And the whole earth was amazed and followed after the beast; they worshiped the dragon because he gave his authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?"

John states the "whole earth" rides the beast.

Rev 14: 6-8 And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, having an eternal gospel to preach to those who live on the earth, and to every nation and tribe and tongue and people; and he said with a loud voice, “Fear God, and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come; worship Him who made the heaven and the earth and sea and springs of waters."
And another angel, a second one, followed, saying, "Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who has made all the nations drink of the wine of the passion of her immorality."

Rev 14:18-20 Then another angel, the one who has power over fire, came out from the altar; and he called with a loud voice to him who had the sharp sickle, saying, "Put in your sharp sickle and gather the clusters from the vine of the earth, because her grapes are ripe."
So the angel swung his sickle to the earth and gathered the clusters from the vine of the earth, and threw them into the great wine press of the wrath of God.
And the wine press was trodden outside the city, and blood came out from the wine press, up to the horses' bridles, for a distance of two hundred miles.

www.biblegateway.com...

Interestingly, the grapes are from the vine of the earth, however, the wine press is trodden outside the "city".

I would really like to know your thoughts on this. I am not saying this is "it", but a different look.
This would also explain the question of the amazement, perhaps.

God Bless~

reply to post by thegoodearth

Thank you for that very thoughtful contribution.
If you're putting forward the idea that the human race itself is effectively Babylon, I don't think this is a foolish idea at all.
You quote and emphasise the verse in ch18 about the blood of "all who have been slain on earth". I've had my beady eye on that verse, and I've been holding it in reserve for when I look at ch18 in the New Year. Because that verse seems to mean every single murder, not just every single martyrdom, since the beginning of time. But the only thing that can possibly be responsible for ALL the blood shed in the world is human sin itself;
Then there is the passage in Zechariah ch5 where the prophet sees a vision of "Iniquity" in the form of a woman, who is being transported across to the land of Shinar (ie Babylon), so that a house can be built for her there.. So there is a scriptural example of Babylon, depicted as a woman, being a symbol for Sin.

So my thoughts have been heading in the same direction, but by a slightly different route. I think you're definitely on to something, there.

In my opinion,the whore of babylon is a city but it is also a woman. That woman is a direct reflection of what kind of monster the city created. The city and the woman bieng one,when the whore falls the city falls.This city wont be a humble one,it will have many stores.

There is a war between satan and the saints,Satan defeats all of the saints except john and jesus. Now the whore of babylon bieng on satans side,has the ability to slay saints. Now bieng drunk with the blood of the saints,this may not mean she litterally drinks the blood,it means she was just feeling extra great the saints got slain because of her.