The Biblical Argument for the Rebuilding of Babylon

Written by: Dr. Charles Dyer

Conference: 1992 Pre-Trib Study Group

Introduction

Why examine the biblical argument for the rebuilding of Babylon at the Pre-Trib Study Group? Apart from the fact that both topics explore issues in eschatology, is there any common ground? It is this author's opinion that the hermeneutical issues surrounding Babylon are the same issues that affect dispensationalism and pretribulationalism. The approach one uses to interpret biblical prophecy lies at the heart of both topics.

For most of Scripture conservative evangelicals argue for historical, grammatical, literal interpretation.[1] However, when they come to "prophetic" passages many change their hermeneutical approach.[2] Dispensationalists and pretribulatlonists have argued that the best approach is to begin with the Old Testament passage itself and to determine the meaning of the passage in its original historical context. Is the passage pointing toward the future? If so, to what is it pointing? It is the consistent use of the literal, historical method of interpretation that has resulted in dispensationalists distinguishing between Israel and the church and accepting a pretribulation rapture of the church before God resumes His program with Israel (Dan. 9:27).

Though dispensationalists believe in literal interpretation, no one wants to be accused of being a "wooden literalist." Literal interpretation allows for figures of speech and symbolic language, and all who claim to interpret literally still interpret some passages, images. or events symbolically.[3] Still, one person's "symbol" is another person's literal prediction. And it is the differences in interpreting specific symbols that often determines one's position on eschatological events such as a pretribulational rapture.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the biblical prophecies relating to the rebuilding of Babylon. However, a larger goal of this study is to explore the issue of literal interpretation as it relates to Babylon. The paper will attempt to ask and answer three questions on the prophecies concerning Babylon.

Why Do Protestants Interpret Babylon Spiritually?

The Influence of Luther and Calvin

The Reformation marked a turning point in interpreting Scripture. Luther and Calvin broke with the allegorical method that had dominated the church since Jerome and Augustine[4] and began interpreting Scripture in its grammatical! historical context. That is not to say that these early reformers were able to make a clean break with the allegorical method of interpretation. However, they did champion the grammatical/historical method for forming doctrine. Luther summarized his distinction between using the allegorical method for illustration and using the grammatical/historical method for interpretation.

Let us forewarn here concerning allegory that it may be handled wisely in the Spirit. For playing games with the Sacred Scriptures has the most injurious consequences if the text and its grammar are neglected. From history we must learn well and much, but little from allegory. You use allegory as embellishment by which the discourse is illustrated but not established. Let history remain honest. It teaches, which allegory does not do. But this is what it means to teach: to instruct the conscience about what and how it should know, to nourish faith and the fear of God. In history you have the fulfillment of either promises or threats. Allegory does not pertain to doctrine, but to doctrine already established it can be added as color. The painter's color does not build the house .... Even so faith is not established by means of allegories.[5]

Luther's dedication to the historical meaning of the text resulted in his understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith. However, Luther was also a product of his times. In the midst of his struggles with Rome he was convinced that his present conflict had been predicted by the prophets.

The appearance of the church under the papacy was exceedingly wretched. It has now revived again, and I am of the opinion that the last three woes in the Apocalypse have now passed and better times are beginning. I know for sure that this age, in which we now are, is better than the age in which the Jews were living at the time of Christ. However, the saying of Christ, "Then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning" [Matt. 24:211, I understand to apply to the tribulation of the godly and not to the tribulation of the world when the pope persecuted the church. "If those days had not been shortened," the passage continues, "no human being would be saved" [Matt. 24:221. This means that if our Lord God hadn't intervened through the gospel, the pope would have destroyed everything, and the gospel and the sacraments would have been lost together with the Holy Scriptures. Although there were great scandals among the Jews, under the papacy it was worse. For in former times only one people was thrown into confusion, but under the papacy the whole world was unsettled. "He takes his seat in the temple of God" [II Thess. 2:41. However, as I have said, the church is better off now than it was then.[6]

Luther's willingness to employ an allegorical or spiritual interpretation coupled with his belief that the prophecies of the end times were unfolding in his day led him to find specific references to the pope and the Roman Catholic Church-in the Antichrist and Babylon!

But we, because we flee from and avoid all such deviltry and novelty and hold fast once more to the ancient church, the virgin and pure bride of Christ-we are certainly the true and ancient church, without any whoredom or innovation. This [Roman] church has therefore, remained till now, and it is out of it that we have come. Indeed, we have been born anew of it as the Galatians were of St. Paul [Gal. 4:19]. We too were formerly stuck in the behind of this hellish whore, this new church of the pope. We supported it in all earnestness, so that we regret having spent so much time and energy in that vile hole. But God be praised and thanked that he rescued us from the scarlet whore [Revelation 17].[7]

No man can believe what an abomination the papacy is. A Christian does not have to be of low intelligence, either, to recognize it. God himself must deride him in the hellish fire, and our Lord Jesus Christ, St. Paul says in II Thessalonians 2 [:8], "will slay him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by his glorious coming." I only deride, with my weak derision, so that those who now live and those who will come after us should know what I have thought of the pope, the damned Antichrist, and so that whoever wishes to be a Christian may be warned against such an abomination.[8]

Calvin, born 26 years after Luther, carried the Reformation in new directions with the publication of his Institutes of the Christian Religion in 1536. Calvin adopted Luther's view that the pope was the Antichrist and the Roman Catholic Church was Babylon.

Therefore, while we are unwilling simply to concede the name of the Church to the Papists, we do not deny that there are churches among them. The question we raise only related to the true and legitimate constitution of the Church, implying communion in sacred rites, which are the signs of profession, and especially in doctrine. Daniel and Paul foretold that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God (Dan. ix. 27; 2 Thess. ii. 4); we regard the Roman Pontiff as the leader and standard-bearer of that wicked and abominable kingdom. By placing his seat in the temple of God, it is intimated that his kingdom would not be such as to destroy the name either of Christ or his Church. Hence, then, it is obvious that we do not at all deny that churches remain under this tyranny; churches, however, which by sacrilegious impiety he has profaned, by cruel domination has oppressed, by evil and deadly doctrines like poisoned potions has corrupted and almost slain; churches where Christ lies half-buried, the gospel is suppressed, piety is put to flight, and the worship of God almost abolished; where, in short, all things are in such disorder as to present the appearance of Babylon rather than the holy city of God.[9]

The Historical Assumptions about Babylon's Fall

While Luther and Calvin saw a prophetic application of Babylon to Rome, both based their identification primarily on the "Babylonian harlot" of Revelation 17. As near as can be determined, both Luther and Calvin assumed the Old Testament prophecies of Babylon's fall were fulfilled historically when Babylon fell to Cyrus in 539 B.C. Luther identified the army
being mustered together for war against Babylon in Isaiah 13:4 as "the soldiery and armed host of the Persians and Medes."[10] When Isaiah predicted that the Jews would return to the land after Babylon's fall (Isa. 14:1-4), Luther says, "All these things were done under Cyrus, king of the Persians, who permitted the Jews conquered by the Babylonians to return to their own land."[11]

Most Protestant interpreters since Luther and Calvin have followed them in assuming that the Old Testament prophecies of Babylon were fulfilled historically. McDowell listed a series of eight specific prophecies on the destruction of Babylon from the Old Testament, and he concludes by stating categorically, "All eight predictions have been fulfilled."[12] Even critical scholars associate the various Old Testament "prophecies" with the fall of Babylon to Cyrus.[13] Certainly the consensus of opinion is that the Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled historically when Babylon fell to Cyrus. What Did Happen to Babylon Historically?

Before examining the specific Old and New Testament prophecies about Babylon, one must first know the history of this city. The second section of this paper will trace Babylon's history from the time of Isaiah through today. The goal of this section is to use all available historical sources to answer the question: What did happen to Babylon historically? Babylon's Temporary Destruction by Sennacherib (689 B.C.)

Beginning with Merodach-baladan, Babylon and Assyria entered a period of conflict much like that experienced between Israel/Judah, and Assyria. Sennacherib conducted several campaigns against Babylon to bring the rebellious city back under his control.[14] Following the final conflict with Mushib-Marduk Sennacherib ordered his troops to destroy Babylon. "I made its destruction more complete than that by a flood. That in days to come, the site of that city, and (its) temples and gods, might not be remembered, I completely blotted it out with (floods) of water and made it like a meadow."'[15] Babylon remained in ruins throughout the remainder of Sennacherib's reign (the next eight years, 689-681 B.C.). The Babylonian Chronicle notes this period by simply recording, "Eight years there was no king in Babylon."'[16]

Sennacherib's son, Esarhaddon, was in charge of administering the region of Babylon while he was crown prince. After becoming king in 681 he began rebuilding Babylon and restoring the ancient temples.[17] The work was not completed until 669-the year Esarhaddon died.

Babylon's Fall to Cyrus (539 B.C.)

The Neo-Babylonian Empire can be traced to Nabopolassar who seized the throne of Babylon in 626 B.C. He led the attack that destroyed the city of Nlneveh in 612 B.C., and he ruled until 605 B.C. His son, Nebuchadnezzar, is the king who brought the Neo-Babylonian empire to its zenith of power. Nebuchadnezzar reigned 605-562 B.C., and he was responsible for destroying the kingdom of Judah and for beginning the "times of the Gentiles" (Dan. 2).

Following Nebuchadnezzar's death the Neo-Babylonian empire began its decline. The next 23 years saw four kings ascend the throne (not including Belshazzar who reigned as coregent with his father). The end of the Neo-Babylonian empire came at the hands of Cyrus in 539 B.C. The Babylonian Chronicle provides a concise account of Babylon's fall.

In the month Tishri when Cyrus (II) did battle of Opis on the [bank oJ] the Tigris against the army of Akkad, the people of Akkad retreated. He carried off the plunder (and) slaughtered the people. On the fourteenth day [i.e., October 10, 539 B.C.1 Sippar was captured without a battle. Nabonidus fled. On the sixteenth day [i.e., October 12, 539 B.C.] Ugbaru, governor of the Gut!, and the army of Cyrus (II) entered Babylon without a battle. Afterwards, after Nabonidus retreated, he was captured in Babylon. Until the end of the month the shield-(bearing troops) of the Gull surrounded the gates of Esagil. (But) there was no interruption (of rites) in Esagil or the (other) temples and no date (for a performance) was missed. On the third day of the month Marchesvan [i.e., October 29, 539 B.c.] Cyrus (II) entered Babylon .... were filled before him. There was peace in the city while Cyrus (II) spoke (his) greeting to all of Babylon.[18]

The Babylonian Chronicle account is corroborated by an inscription found on a clay barrel. The inscription was an edict by Cyrus explaining why the gods had allowed him to capture Babylon. The inscription concludes by recording Cyrus's generous treatment of both the people of Babylon and the gods that had been held captive in Babylon.

When I entered Babylon (DIN.TIRkI) as a friend and (when) I established the seat of the government in the palace of the ruler under jubilation and rejoicing, Marduk, the great lord, Induced] the magnanimous inhabitants of Babylon (DIN.TIR) [to love me], and I was daily endeavouring to worship him. My numerous troops walked around in Babylon (DIN.TIR'') in peace, I did not allow anybody to terrorize (any place) of the [country of Sumer] and Akkad. I strove for peace in Babylon (Ka.dingir.ra') and in all his (other) sacred cities. As to the inhabitants of Babylon (DIN.TIR''), [who] against the will of the gods [had/were .... I abolished] the corvŽe (lit.: yoke) which was against their (social) standing. I brought relief to their dilapidated housing, putting (thus) an end to their (main) complaints. Marduk, the great lord, was well pleased with my deeds and sent friendly blessings to myself, Cyrus, the king who worships him, to Cambyses, my son, the offspring of [my] loins, as well as to all my troops, and we all [praised] his great Igodheadi joyously, standing before him in peace.

All the kings of the entire world from the Upper to the Lower Sea, those who are seated in throne rooms, (those who) live in other [types of buildings as well as] all the kings of the West land living in tents, brought their heavy tributes and kissed my feet in Babylon (u.an.na). (As to the region) from... as far as Ashur and Susa, Agade, Eshnunna, the towns Zamban, Me-Turnu, Der as well as the region of the Gutians, I returned to (these) sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris, the sanctuaries of which have been ruins for a long time, the images which (used) to live therein and established for them permanent sanctuaries. I (also) gathered all their (former) inhabitants and returned (to them) their habitations. Furthermore, I resettled upon the command of Marduk, the great lord, all the gods of Sumer and Akkad whom Nabonidus has brought into Babylon (u.an.nak1) to the anger of the lord of the gods, unharmed, in their (former) chapels, the places which make them happy.

May all the gods whom I have resettled in their sacred cities ask daily Bel and Nebo for a long life for me and may they recommend me (to him); to Marduk, my lord, they may say this: "Cyrus, the king who worships you, and Cambyses, his son ............. all of them I settled in a peaceful place... ducks and doves .... I endeavoured to fortify/repair their dwelling places .... [19]

Babylon's Later History (530 B.C.-A.D. 1975)

Babylon's later history can be traced through the Medo-Persian and Greek periods by focusing on several key historical points. Cyrus was followed to the throne by Cambyses (530- 522), Pseudo-Smerdis (522), and Darius I (522-486). At the time of Cambyses's death two revolts took place in Babylon. According to Herodotus, when Darius was finally able to put down these revolts he tried to weaken Babylon to prevent further insurrection. "Having mastered the Babylonians, Darius destroyed their walls and reft away all their gates, neither of
which things Cyrus had done at the first taking of Babylon: moreover he impaled about three thousand men that were chief among them; as for the rest, he gave them back their city to dwell in. "[20]

There is some question as to whether Darius destroyed all the walls of the city or only the gates and, perhaps, portions of the outer wail on the eastern side. Herodotus visited Babylon about 450 B.C. approximately 70 years after Darius's attack. From his eyewitness description it appears that the gates of the city were no longer in place but most (if not all) of the walls were still standing. "Further, at the end of each road there was a gate in the riverside fence, one gate for each alley: these gates also were of bronze, and these too opened on the river. These [outer] walls are the city's outer armour; within them there is another encircling wall, well nigh as strong as the other, but narrower."[21] Herodotus also reports that the royal palace was still standing along with the temple complex of Marduk (which he calls Zeus Belus) and the tower of Babel.[22]

Herodotus's eyewitness account also calls into question later accounts of Babylon's destruction at the hands of Xerxes (485-465 B.C.). Arrian records that "the temple of Belus was in the midst of the city of Babylon, in size immense, and made of baked brick with bitumen for mortar. This temple, like the other shrines of Babylon, Xerxes razed to the ground, when he returned from Greece. "[23] Perhaps the accounts can be harmonized by assuming that Xerxes damaged or ransacked the temple of Marduk proper without destroying the entire complex or the tower structure. In any case, the walls of Babylon, the temple complex of Marduk, and the tower of Babel were still in existence after the time of Xerxes when Herodotus visited the site, though they may have been in some state of disrepair.

Babylon also played a significant role in the life of Alexander the Great. Having "conquered the world," Alexander returned to Babylon. He was busy making the city his chief city in the eastern part of his empire when he died. According to Strabo, Alexander began repairing and rebuilding the tower of Babel. "Alexander intended to repair this pyramid; but it would have been a large task and would have required a long time (for merely the clearing away of the mound was a task for ten thousand men for two months), so that he could not finish what he had attempted[24] When Alexander's general, Hephaestion, died, Alexander "ordered a pyre to be made ready for him in Babylon at a cost of ten thousand talents.[25] In his excavations in Babylon Robert Koldewey uncovered a series of mounds called by the local population "Humaira." The archaeological discoveries in this area support the accounts of Arrian and Strabo and tie both together.

The central mound consists of debris of broken bricks, among which an artificial platform was found, marked by traces of a great conflagration. These ruins are believed to mark the site of the funeral pyre erected by order of Alexander for the funeral of Hephaestion. The northernmost mound, c. 16 m high, consists of nothing but brick rubble, artificially heaped up. Some of the brick fragments bear Nebuchadnezzar's name and record the building of Etemenanki. Indeed it would seem that this is the actual debris removed by Alexander when he decided to rebuilt I sic] the ziggurat, which was in ruins when he reached Babylon.[26]

Alexander's plan was to establish Babylon as his chief city in the east. "Alexander dug a harbour at Babylon, large enough to be a roadstead for a thousand ships of war, and dockyards on the harbour."[27] A Greek theater was also constructed in Babylon that could seat 4,000, It is unclear who built the theater. But its location in Humaira near the funeral pyre and the debris from Etemenanki point to the time of Alexander for its construction.[28] But Alexander's plans for Babylon were cut short when he died in Babylon at the age of 32.

After the division of Alexander's empire among his generals Babylon was seized by Seleucus in 312 B.C. Seleucus later founded the city of Seleucia further north on the Tigris River, and this city replaced Babylon as the capital city of the empire. Yet Babylon remained an important religious and political center. Both Seleucus and his son, Antiochus 1, retained the title "king of Babylon."[29]

The Parthians pushed into Mesopotamia between 166 and 122 B.C. and eventually established their capital at Ctesiphon.[30] During the Parthian era Ctesiphon became the civil center, Seleucia remained the commercial center, while Babylon continued as the religious center. Josephus records that a large number of Jews were still living in Babylon during the Parthian period. "When Hyrcanus was brought into Parthia, the king of Phraates treated him after a very gentle manner, as having already learned of what an illustrious family he was; on which account he set him free from his bonds, and gave him a habitation at Babylon, where there were Jews in great numbers."[31]

Whitson believes Josephus is mistaken in his identification of Babylon as the site where Hyrcanus was settled. "The city here called 'Babylon' by Josephus seems to be one which was built by some of the Seleucid, upon the Tigris; which, long alter the utter desolation of Old Babylon was commonly so called, just as the later adjoining city Bagdat [sic) is often called by the same old name of Babylon."[32] If Whitson is correct, then Josephus's reference to Babylon has no merit because Josephus would have confused Babylon with either Seleucia or Ctesiphon. However, Josephus seems to know the difference between all three cities. Later in his account he records an incident where "a pestilence came upon these [Jews] at Babylon, which occasioned new removals of men's habitations out of that city; and because they came to Seleucla, it happened that a still heavier calamity came upon them."[33] Josephus had earlier demonstrated his familiarity with Seleucia by describing it as "the principal city of those parts, which was built by Seleucus Nicator .. . .[34]"' Alter describing the massacre of 50,000 Jews who had fled from Babylon to Seleucia, Josephus reports that those who managed to escape "retired to Ctesiphon, a Grecian city, and situated near to Seleucia, where the king [of Parthia] lives in winter every year .. . .[35] The point here is that Josephus clearly distinguishes between the three cities of Babylon, Seleucia, and Ctesiphon. When Josephus refers to Jews living in Babylon, one should assume that Josephus knew which city he had in mind.

Strabo (63 B.C.-A.D. 24) reported that Babylon, while still in existence in his day, was in decline. "What is more, Seleuceia at the present time has become larger than Babylon, whereas the greater part of Babylon is so deserted that one would not hesitate to say what one of the comic poets said in reference to the Megalopolitans in Arcadia: The Great City is a great desert.'"[36] And yet one cannot read too much into Strabo's words because he goes on to describe the buildings and homes constructed there. He also mentions the religious groups still living in Babylon. "In Babylonia a settlement is set apart for the local philosophers, the Chaldaeans, as they are called, who are concerned mostly with astronomy. . .[37]

Pliny (A.D. 23-79) gives a similar report on the condition of Babylon in his day. The city had lost most of its former glory, but it still maintained its religious significance. 'The temple of Jupiter Belus in Babylon is still standing-Belus was the discoverer of the science of astronomy; but in all other respects the place has gone back to a desert, having been drained of its population by the proximity of Seleucia.. ."[38]

While one cannot be dogmatic, it seems likely that a Jewish community continued to exist in Babylon during the first century A.D. On the day of Pentecost Jews from "Mesopotamia" gathered with others from the diaspora in Jerusalem (Acts 2:9). Some of those other Jews who gathered came from "Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia" (Acts 2:9-10). Jewish believers from these areas are included with Gentiles as the recipients of Peter's first epistle which he wrote to those "scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Pet. 1:1). Having written to these believers among the diaspora Peter, the apostle to the Jews (cf. Gal. 2:8-10), closes his epistle by extending a greeting from "she [i.e., the church] who is in Babylon" (1 Pet. 5:13). While some see this as a coded reference to Rome,[39] It hardly seems necessary for Peter to use such coded language. It seems more likely that Peter, while visiting one enclave of Jewish believers in Babylon, wrote a letter to another enclave of Jewish and Gentile believers in Asia Minor.[40]

With the close of the New Testament the information on Babylon becomes very sparse. Writers quote Dio who says Trajan visited Babylon in A.D. 116 and found "nothing but mounds and stones and ruinsÉ."[41] However, Dlo's account should not be accepted uncritically. First, he also says Trajan offered sacrifices to Alexander "in the room where he had died."[42] If true, this implies that (a) some buildings were still standing and (b) someone still lived in Babylon who could point out the room to Trajan. Second, Dio also records Trajan's visit to the pit where the bitumen was mined for Babylon. He describes the pit as a place where deadly vapors "destroy any terrestrial animal and any winged creature" who might venture in except "human beings that have been emasculated. The reason for this I cannot understand."[43] He seems subject to exaggeration.

The next western source that can be clearly identified in Babylon is the Jewish traveler from Spain, Benjamin of Tudela who visited the site 1,000 years after Trajan. He left a fascinating account of his travels to the Middle East, including a visit to Baghdad, Babylon, arid Hula.

From thence [i.e., Ras-al-Ain which was two days from Baghdad] it is one day to Babylon. This is the ancient Babel, and now lies in ruins; but the streets still extend thirty miles. The ruins of the palace of Nebuchadnezzar are still to be seen; but people are afraid to venture among them on account of the serpents and scorpions with which they are infested. Twenty thousand Jews live within about twenty miles from this place, and perform their worship in the synagogue of Daniel, who rests in peace. This synagogue is of remote antiquity, having been built by Daniel himself; It is constructed of solid stones and bricks. Here the traveller [sic] may also behold the palace of Nebuchadnezzar, with the burning fiery furnace into which were thrown Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah; it is a valley well known to every one. Hillah, which is at a distance of five miles, contains about ten thousand Jews and four synagogues .... [44]

Benjamin of Tudela's description is a complex picture of a city largely in ruins but which still has some measure of habitation. He mentions that people are afraid to venture into Nebuchadnezzar's palace; but he then describes Daniel's synagogue, which is close to Nebuchadnezzar's palace in the city, and says it is visited by 20,000 Jews.

Benjamin of Tudela's description fits well with the descriptions of Pliny and other ancient writers. Much of the ancient city of Babylon was in ruins. However, the site was still inhabited and still held religious significance. But later western writers seems to paint a more desolate picture of Babylon. For example, in 1574 the German traveler, Rauwoif, traveled to Mesopotamia and wrote of his experiences. His description of the "ruins of Babylon" is more typical of the writings of later Europeans who describe Babylon as totally desolate and uninhabited.

The village of Elugo, now lieth on the place where formerly old Babylon, the metropolis of Cha1da, was situated. The harbour is a quarter of a league's distance from it, where people go ashore in order to proceed by land to the celebrated city of Bagdat, which is a day and a half's journey from thence eastward on the Tigris .... Just before the village of Elugo is the hill whereon the castle stood, and the ruins of its fortifications are still visible, though demolished and uninhabited. Behind it, and pretty near to it, did stand the tower of Babylon.-It is still to be seen, and is half a league in diameter; but so ruinous, so low, and so full of venomous creatures, which lodge in holes made by them in the rubbish, that no one durst approach nearer to it than within half a league, except during two months in the winter, when these animals never stir out of their holes.[45]

Rauwolf's description of Babylon's utter desolation, while vivid and dramatic, is also incorrect. The "village of Elugo" which he identified as ancient Babylon is known today as Al Falligah.. It is on the Euphrates River and was the spot where travelers left their boats to continue by land to Baghdad.[46] Unfortunately, the ancient site of Babylon is still 75 miles further south on the Euphrates River. Rauwoif never set eyes on the city of Babylon. In fact, many of the descriptions by many western visitors are not of Babylon but of other ruins in southern Mesopotamia that were within "visiting distance" of Baghdad.

Not much information on Babylon during the remainder of the Middle Ages can be found, but there is information that the city has been inhabited in the Modern Era, from at least the 1700s. Koldewey, the German archaeologist responsible for much of the work which has been done at Babylon, makes an interesting comment on the villages around the city. He described the site of the city and its ruins in this way:

At the bend of the Euphrates, between Babil and Kasr lie the ruins of the former village of Kweiresh, whose population migrated elsewhere a hundred years ago. The walls of mud brick still overtop the heaps of debris.

The modem village of Kweiresh lies close to the Kasr, to which we must now turn our attention. The most northerly house of Kweiresh is the headquarters of our expedition (Fig. 12), called by the Arabs "Kasr abid" [italics added].[47]

Koldewey makes two important statements. First, he states definitely that a village was existing in his day within the walls of the ancient city of Babylon. He headquartered in this village as he excavated the nearby ruins. Second, Koldewey reports the existence of another village (with the same name) that had also existed within the city of Babylon a century earlier. Since he gives only an approximate date of abandonment, there is no way to determine how long that earlier city had existed in Babylon; but the permanence of the structures would suggest an extended history. Koldewey presents a detailed map of Babylon's ruins (see map on the next page) in which he shows the location of both the ancient village pf Kweiresh as well as the modem village. Both are in the heart of what was once ancient Babylon.[48]

Babylon Today

Koldewey has shown that Babylon was still inhabited at least at the time of his excavations in the early 1900s. However, what is the status of Babylon today? In 1978 Mrs. L. Glynne Dairos, Assistant Secretary of the British School of Archaeology in Iraq, responded to a question from this writer on the existence of any modern villages within the walls of the ancient city. She wrote, "There are three modem settlements situated inside the walls of ancient Babylon. The government of Iraq does indeed plan to restore much of Babylon and has indeed made a start on certain buildings."[49]

To understand what is happening in Babylon today one must first understand the political ambitions of Saddam Hussein. During the Iran/Iraq War Saddam Hussein used the city of Babylon as a visual aid to remind the Iraqi people of the history of conflict between Iraq and Iran and of the territorial ambitions of the Iranians. As Paul Lewis wrote in the New York Times International, "President Hussein's decision to rebuild Nebuchadnezzar's Palace at the height of a war he almost lost was the centerpiece of a campaign to strengthen Iraqi nationalism by appealing to history .... Mr. Hussein's campaign also served subtler ends: it justified Iraq's costly war with Iran as the continuation of Mesopotamia's ancient feud with Persia. And it portrayed Saddam Hussein as successor to Nebuchadnezzar, Babylon's mightiest ruler."[50]

In effect, Saddam Hussein used Babylon as an Iraqi Alamo or Masada. His decision to rebuild Babylon forced the people to focus on a grand era in Iraq's history that was destroyed by the same enemy who again threatened the nation. It is no accident that the Babylon being rebuilt by Hussein was the Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar. As early as 1986 Michael Dobbs, writing in the Washington Post, noticed that the restoration of Babylon had become a political (not merely an archaeological) undertaking. The Iraqis view Babylon somewhat differently [than the Bible]. For the Iraqi government, the Babylonian Empire is a source of national pride and inspiration for the grueling six-year-old war with neighboring Iran, Iraq's hereditary enemy. President Saddam Hussein has ordered that no expense be spared to restore the city to its ancient splendor."[51]

Building Babylon became synonymous with rising to the threat of the Iranians and asserting Iraq's "manifest destiny" to lead the Arab nations to glory. Now, instead of just building Babylon as an archaeological park, Babylon became the focal point of Iraqi nationalism which had replaced the earlier Baathist goal of Arab nationalism. By early 1987 plans were underway to hold the first annual Babylon Festival to celebrate the glory of Babylon, which included an emphasis on Saddam Hussein and Iraq. It is no accident that the opening of the festival was scheduled for September 22, 1987-seven years to the day after Iraq's invasion of Iran.[52]

While the Babylon Festival was announced as a cultural event featuring musical groups, symposia, and other cultural activities, the festival had much deeper political overtones. This writer attended the first Babylon Festival as an invited participant. One could not help but notice the emphasis placed on Saddam Hussein and the comparisons made between Saddam Hussein and Nebuchadnezzar. The official seal of the Babylon Festival featured the portraits of Saddam Hussein and Nebuchadnezzar side by side. The portraits were designed to stress physical similarities between the two men. The official theme of the Festival was "From Nabukhadnezzar [sic] to Saddam Hussein Babylon Undergoes a Renaissance."

On the opening night of the Babylon Festival Mr. Latif Nssayif Jassim, Minister of Information and Culture, spoke to the audience that had gathered. His speech focused on the political and historical conflict between Iraq and Iran and the part played by Babylon in that conflict.

However, the Persian [i.e., Iranian] mentality in our neighbourhood, prompted by deep- rooted hatred and aggressiveness tried to quench the flame of civilisation in this city of Babylon. Hence the city came under the attack of the Persian ruler Kurash (Cyrus) who, before 2,500 years, laid siege to this town. The siege lasted long and the town remained strong. It was not until Cyrus had collaborated with the Jews inside the city that he was able to tighten the siege round the city and subsequently to occupy it .... Today we are living in the midst of Khomeini's aggression which has extended over a span of seven years during which Khomeini had allied himself with the Zionists in an attempt to enter Baghdad and other Iraqi cities and to destroy them as was the case with Babylon .... It [i.e., rebuilt Babylon] will serve as a living example of the grandeur of the Iraqis to pursue their path for more glories.[53]

This writer's visits to Babylon in 1987 and 1988 confirm that much of the site is being rebuilt by Saddam Hussein. (See map on the following page.) Hussein's agenda in rebuilding Babylon has nothing to do with Bible prophecy, but it has everything to do with his desire to promote his political agenda in the Middle East.

Old policies have always ignored the status of Babylon when they created psychological and scientific barriers between Iraqis and their leaders in ancient times. No one has ever mentioned the achievements of "Hammurabi," the founder of the first organized set of law in human history. Or "Nebuchadnezzar," the national hero who was able to defeat the enemies of the nation on the land of "Kennan" [i.e., Canaan] and to take them as prisoner of war to Babylon. What we need now is to increase awareness in this regard.[54]

The third annual Babylon Festival was held in September 1989, but the fourth annual festival scheduled for September 1990 was canceled following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm became the dominant topic in that region of the world. When the smoke of battle cleared, many felt that Saddam Hussein's days were numbered. But amazingly he has survived longer than the U.S. President who masterminded the coalition against Iraq.

But what about Babylon? The city was not damaged during the bombing in Operation Desert Storm. It was included on a list of sites off limits to bombing because of historical or archaeological importance. Work on the reconstruction of Babylon stopped following the invasion of Kuwait, but the reconstruction already completed remained intact. Within months after the end of Operation Desert Storm an article appeared in the New York Times describing the resumption of work at Babylon.

One of President Hussein's favorite prestige projects has been the rebuilding of King Nebuchadnezzar's great southern palace in Babylon according to the designs of German archaeologists early this century .... Reconstruction has been more or less complete for a year now. And while archaeologists may bicker over details, this immense set of interconnecting chambers and courtyards surrounded by crenelated fortifications is more interesting for visitors than the pile of mud that used to be all there was to see at Babylon.

Today, however, the southern temple [sic, palace] is a desolate spot. Power and water have been cut off by the allied bombing, and its shops, museums and restaurants are closed. But work is under way on a series of three huge viewing platforms just outside the walls of Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon from which visitors wIlL.be able to look down at new excavations Iraq is planning.

"This is the personal orders of the President," said Iraq's Director General of Antiquities, Mouyad Said.[55]

On August 27, 1992, this writer received a fax from the Iraqi Interest Section of the Algerian Embassy. The fax read in part, "On the occasion of the Fourth Babylon Festival, the symposium of Babylon architecture will be held from September 1, 1992 to September 6, 1992 In Baghdad. We are please to invite you to participate in this symposiumÉ"[56] On June 28, 1993, another letter was received inviting this writer to "the Fifth Annual Babylon Festival to be held from September 22, 1993 to October 6, 1993."[57] The war may have slowed Saddam Hussein down, but it did not put an end to his plans to restore the city of Babylon.

What Does the Bible Say about Babylon?

Having traced Babylon's history from the time of Isaiah till today, this paper must now turn to the Bible to place Babylon's history in prophetic perspective. Three Old Testament prophecies and one New Testament prophecy concerning Babylon will be briefly examined to determine what, if any, prophetic significance they might have.

IsaIah 13-14

In Isaiah 13-23 the prophet turns from Judah to deliver God's message to the surrounding Gentile nations. It is as if the prophet is telling these nations, "If God hasn't spared His own people, what makes you Gentiles think you will escape?" This section is so large that it is often difficult to determine Its structural significance. It often helps first to list the nations in order and to make any observations on the overall structure before examining the particular messages. The nations addressed by Isaiah are as follows:

Babylon (13:1-14:23)-45 verses

Assyria (14:24-27)---4 verses

Philistia (14:28-32)-5 verses

Moab (15:1-16:14)-23 verses

Damascus and Samarla (17:1-14)-14 verses

Cush (18:1-7)-7 verses

Egypt (19:1-25)-25 verses

Egypt and Cush (20:1-6)--6 verses

Babylon (21:1-10)-10 verses

Edom (2i:11-12)-2 verses

Arabia (21:13-17)--5 verses

Jerusalem (22:1-25)-25 verses

Tyre (23:1-18)-18 verses

Four principles of Bible study can help in evaluating this list of nations. The first principle is the principle of chiasm. If a list is structured as a chiasm, whatever is at the beginning and end of the chiasm or whatever is in the center of the chiasm might be that which the author is stressing. This principle does not apply to IsaIah 13-23 because the list is not structured as a chiasm. The second principle is the principle of perceived order in a list. Whatever the author places first or last in his list might be important. Isaiah placed Babylon first, and he placed Tyre last. The third principle is the law of proportion. In any list the author will spend more time on those items he intends to emphasize. If Cush and Egypt are counted as a unit, then the three nations on which Isaiah spends most of his time are Babylon (45 verses), Egypt and Cush (38 verses), and Jerusalem (25 verses). The fourth principle is the principle of repetition. If an author repeats an item in his list, it could be important. In Isaiah 13-23 one nation is repeated twice-Babylon (13-14; 21).

This preliminary review of Isaiah 13-23 points out the importance of Babylon in Isaiah's messages against the nations. Isaiah begins his series of messages with Babylon, he spends more time on Babylon than on any other nation, and he has two separate messages against Babylon in the list. Thus Babylon must be important in the theme Isaiah is developing.

However, before continuing one key issue must be explored. Some scholars have argued that the prophecies against Babylon in Isaiah 13-14 are actually focusing on Assyria and its king instead of Babylon. If this is true, then Isaiah's prophecies against Babylon might have no significance for the future of Babylon. But why do these scholars see Assyria rather than Babylon in Isaiah 13-14? Three basic reasons are given. First, the structure of Isaiah 13-23 argues for ldentifying Assyria with Babylon. Each of Isaiah's messages against the nations is introduced with the word "oracle" ("an oracle concerning Babylon," etc.). But after describing the destruction of Babylon in 13:1-14:23, Isaiah does not use the word "oracle" to describe God's judgment against Assyria (14:24-27). "Many interpreters feel that these verses are a separate section. But it seems preferable to see them as part of the oracle beginning in 13:1 "[58] Thus, the argument goes, Isaiah identifies the real subject of this oracle, Assyria, as he draws the oracle to a conclusion.

Second, identifying Babylon as Assyria would fit better historically in light of Assyria's dominant position on the international scene. "Many commentators have assumed that Isaiah's message in 13:1-14:27 about the fall of Babylon referred to its fall to Medo-Persia in 539. However, it seems better to see this section as pertaining to the Assyrian attack on Babylon in 689. This ties in better with the Assyrian threat Isaiah had written about in 7:17-8:10, beginning with the attacks under the rule of Tiglath-Pileser III (745-727)."[59] Assyria, not Babylon, was the nation threatening Judah in Isaiah's day, and it would make more sense for Isaiah to start his list of nations with Assyria.

Third, identifying Babylon as Assyria can be justified since the kings of Assyria took on the title "king of Babylon." "But wasn't Sennacherib king of Assyria rather than Babylon? He was king of both because Babylon was a vassal of Assyria from the end of the 10th century B.C. Occasionally the vassal ruler over Babylon revolted against Assyria, but in 728 Tiglath-Pileser III, Assyria's aggressive ruler from 745-727, was crowned king of Babylon .... Sargon 11(722- 705) and Sennacherib (705-681), later Assyrian monarchs, also called themselves kings of Babylon."[60] Thus the "king of Babylon" in Isaiah 14 would, in reality, have been the current king of Assyria.

How strong are the arguments for identifying Babylon as Assyria in Isaiah 13-14? Each of the arguments is not as strong as it might first appear. First, Isaiah's use of the term "oracle" cannot be used to associate Assyria with Babylon. Isaiah does not consistently use "oracle" to separate each message against the nations. In 17:1 Isaiah introduces a new nation with his standard phrase: "An oracle concerning Damascus." Damascus and the Arameans lived northeast of Judah and were a constant source of trouble to the Israelites. However, in Isaiah 18:1 the prophet shifts to another nation-but he does not begin this new section with the word "oracle." "Woe to the land of whirring wings, along the rivers of Cush, which sends envoys by sea in papyrus boats over the water" (18:1-2). Cush was the land south of Egypt in the area today known as Sudan. There is no way Cush can be identified with Damascus, but Isaiah moved from one nation to the other without using "or