Thanks for your thoughtful response!

Indeed, John refers to the harlot as the “mother of harlots and abominations of the earth” (Revelation 17:5). While Jerusalem is likened to a harlot, this does not necessarily mean she is the ultimate “mother” or source of all harlotry. Your argument about Babylon, starting with Nimrod’s Tower of Babel, being the original source of such corruption is compelling, given its foundational role in introducing idolatrous practices that spread to other nations, including Jerusalem.

However, the imagery and context within Revelation still support the interpretation of Jerusalem as a key player in the narrative. Jerusalem’s history of spiritual unfaithfulness and its central role in the biblical narrative make it a significant symbol of apostasy.

Your point about the Protestant Reformation and the historical consequences of Rome’s religious and political power is valid. The middle ages indeed saw severe consequences for dissenters, highlighting the far-reaching impact of religious systems.

One thing I haven’t pointed out yet is the woman mentioned earlier in Revelation 12, often interpreted as representing Jerusalem, seems to be associated with events of the first century, particularly leading up to the birth of Jesus and the persecution of the early Christian church. This chapter appears to be covering the time period you are focusing on.

The transition from this vision of the woman to the vision of the harlot and the beast implies a shift in time or focus within the narrative. If the woman representing Jerusalem is primarily associated with first-century events, then the introduction of the harlot and the beast most likely signifies a later period or a broader scope of events beyond the first century. This transition aligns with a later date of composition, as proponents of a later date argue that Revelation reflects developments and challenges facing the Christian community in the late first century, such as the persecution under Emperor Domitian.

So, the first woman mentioned in Revelation clearly represents Jerusalem/Israel, given the imagery of the sun, moon, and stars (Revelation 12:1), which aligns with Joseph’s dream in Genesis 37:9-11. This strongly suggests that the second woman, the harlot, is also likely Jerusalem, especially considering the textual evidence. John explicitly identifies the harlot as “the great city” (Revelation 17:18), which he earlier defined as Jerusalem (Revelation 11:8). This identification is further supported by the Old Testament references to Jerusalem’s unfaithfulness (Isaiah 1:21; Jeremiah 2:20, 3:1-11; Ezekiel 16:1-43)..

Regarding the dating of the Book of Revelation, I believe it is crucial because it frames our understanding of the text’s purpose and fulfillment. Knowing whether it was written before or after 70 A.D. helps determine if the prophecies were meant for the first-century events or for future occurrences.

While it’s true that John did not include a specific date, the context and historical references within the book offer clues. Scholars use these to argue for either an early or late date. This discussion on the dating is foundational, and I’d love to hear your thoughts on the arguments for both early and late dating to see how it shapes our interpretations of Revelation.