Babylon the Great

There have been a couple of occasions over the years when an email question or comment from a reader has triggered me to write another article, and I suppose I can add this one to the list. And here's how I got here:

A couple of months ago, I wrote an article about the fact that many prophecy folks are looking forward to the complete destruction of Damascus in a presumed fulfillment of Isaiah 17:1. But not all students of prophecy see it that way: Some believe this prophecy was completely fulfilled in history and thus see no need for a future fulfillment.

In that article, I look at both sides of the argument and in the end I concede that I am officially on the fence. Although I tend to lean toward the historical fulfillment interpretation, I freely admit that it could go either way.

But at one point in the article, I make mention of a prophecy in Isaiah 13:19–20 concerning the destruction of Babylon:

¹⁹Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldeans' pride, will be like when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. [That is, utter decimation. But will it remain that way forever? That's the question.]

²⁰It will never be inhabited, neither will it be lived in from generation to generation. [Yep...forever. Isaiah couldn't possibly be any clearer.] The Arabian will not pitch a tent there, neither will shepherds make their flocks lie down there. [No people, no sheep, nothing.]

(Isaiah 13:19–20 / emphasis & [comments] added)

I indicated that I (along with many others) believe this has been fulfilled in history in spite of claims to the contrary, just as some believe the destruction of Damascus was fulfilled. I note that some disagree and are convinced Isaiah's prophecy concerning Babylon has not been fulfilled, and as a result are sold on the idea that the literal city of Babylon must be rebuilt in the end times only to be destroyed during the Great Tribulation because of what they read in Revelation 17–18. Here's a pertinent quote from that article:

An end-times Babylon? Some people believe Babylon will be rebuilt in the end times due to references to it in Revelation 17 and 18. Many Bible commentators are convinced, however, that rather than references to the literal city of Babylon, these are references to religious, political, and/or commercial aspects of the kingdom of the Antichrist. You be the judge.

You be the judge. Indeed. Not long ago, however, I received a polite email from a very nice, astute reader about how the prophecies concerning Babylon's destruction had apparently not been completely, literally fulfilled in history as I indicated, and he linked to an article that purported to offer proof to that effect. For example, it showed photographic evidence that there had been some people living in the area of ancient Babylon in modern times, and that a few of the original stones had been reused for various purposes.

The intended upshot of this information was to prove that Isaiah's prophecy concerning Babylon was not fulfilled in history, and so the destruction of Babylon John refers to in Revelation 17–18 had to be that fulfillment: John must be referring to the literal city of Babylon, which must be rebuilt in the end times, must become the headquarters of the Antichrist's kingdom, and must be annihilated during the Great Tribulation by the hand of God.

That reader's email provided the spark, and I couldn't get Babylon and Revelation 17–18 out of my head. Yes...Babylon the Great. So that's what brought me to this article—and to the question of whether Revelation 17–18 requires the literal city of Babylon in Iraq to be rebuilt and become the religious, political, and economic powerhouse of the world in the Antichrist's kingdom, only to be destroyed by God during the Great Tribulation...

Or if Revelation 17–18 is talking about something different.

First, let me make it clear what I'm not going to do in this article:

• I am not going to try and conclusively prove to you that John is referring to the religious, political, and commercial aspects of the Antichrist's kingdom, and not necessarily a literal city (even though I lean in this direction).

• I am not going to try and conclusively prove to you that John is referring to the literal, rebuilt city of Babylon. (I freely admit that I held this view for many years, although now I see problems with it.)

• I am not going to try and conclusively prove to you that when John speaks of Babylon in Revelation 17–18, he is really talking about some other city such as Rome, Jerusalem, both, or some other city (views held by many people).

My goal in this article is quite simple: I basically just want to share with you some thoughts on Babylon. I want you to understand a few of the reasons why I am convinced that no matter what our interpretation of Revelation 17–18 may be, none of us will ever know for absolute certain exactly what Revelation 17–18 really means in all its powerful, prophetic splendor until God sovereignly chooses to reveal it to us...which is likely to be when or perhaps not long before these things actually unfold during the Tribulation. In other words:

We might as well put away the soapboxes on this one.

Now, don't get me wrong...I'm kidding, but just barely. We can all certainly have our personal opinions and our arguments to support those opinions about what these two chapters mean—I know I've got mine and many of you out there have yours. There's never anything wrong with a little healthy debate carried on in the spirit of trying to ferret out what God's Word is saying to us. It's just that I am convinced that none of us will ever figure this out with 100 percent certainty prior to God's sovereign timing, and by the time I finish I trust you will understand why I say that.

Since that reader's email focused on viewing Revelation 17–18 as referring to a literal, rebuilt city of Babylon on the Euphrates River in Iraq, what I want to do here is take that interpretation of John's prophecy and discuss some of the problems with it. In the process, I will touch on other related points and by the time we get to the finish line I hope you can appreciate the fact that no interpretation of these two chapters is absolutely airtight.

In other words, in the end, I just want you to see that there are no easy answers as to how to correctly interpret Revelation 17–18, and I want you to understand in no uncertain terms why that is the case. And as a result, I sincerely believe my above remark about putting away the soapboxes on this one will turn out to have a ring of commonsense truth to it.

The literal view (and some of its weaknesses)

The view of Revelation 17–18 that sees the need for a literal, rebuilt city of Babylon in the end times is a popular view that is shared by some great commentators I deeply respect, including Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Andy Woods, Joel Rosenberg, Chuck Missler, Mark Hitchcock, and others.

After the fall of Saddam Hussein's government, some of these commentators went so far as to hail what they believed was a new beginning for Iraq, and gushed about how a shiny, rebuilt Babylon was surely on the horizon that would make their anticipated fulfillment of Revelation 17–18 a reality at long last.

Although there have been attempts in the last couple of decades to get something going in regard to rebuilding the ancient city of Babylon, nothing has ever really gotten off the ground and gained much momentum. It was little more than a grandiose vanity project under Saddam Hussein, who fancied himself as a modern-day King Nebuchadnezzar. Unfortunately, he had a few walls rebuilt with ordinary concrete instead of the more suitable mud and straw-baked bricks and actually ended up doing more harm than good to some of the existing ruins. So...at least for now, Babylon ain't lookin' so great.

Overall, such efforts haven't made it past the preliminary stages and any such project has floundered in spite of the best efforts of some well-intentioned people. Of course, that doesn't mean Babylon will never be rebuilt—that could still happen at some point in the future. As I said, I'm not out to disprove the literal view because it could be right.

But this view is not without problems, and I want to briefly consider a few of the issues with the idea of interpreting Revelation 17–18 to mean there will be a literal, rebuilt city of Babylon in Iraq during the Tribulation.

• Literal precision or apocalyptic hyperbole?

Long before John wrote the book of Revelation, the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah wrote prophecies concerning the fate of the wicked city of Babylon. And although Isaiah 13–14 and Jeremiah 50–51 certainly encompass the fall of Babylon that would occur later in 539 BC, students of the Bible argue about how much of what they prophesy bleeds over into the last days—and it's difficult to discount the possibility that some of it does.

Like any semi-competent student of Scripture, I agree that the Bible should be interpreted as literally as common sense and context allow. But there are times when we have to decide if a passage of Scripture contains some graphic details that are meant to be taken literally, or if the writer is using exaggerated images to emphasize his point and paint a gloriously graphic image of something God is telling us He is going to do in the future.

For example, in Isaiah 13:19 the prophet says the fall of Babylon will be like "when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah," which, as you know, involved annihilation so sudden and so devastating that it calls to mind the image of a meteorite striking the earth. In Jeremiah 50:15 the prophet says that "her walls are thrown down," or completely razed. But these things never actually happened—not in the sixth century BC and at no time since.

Yes, Babylon was clearly conquered by the Medes in 539 BC; but as far as the walls are concerned, the Medes just snuck in under them and staged a coup (Dan. 5). As a result, most of Babylon's magnificent infrastructure remained intact, although the city was ultimately left abandoned by around AD 900–1000 and the city's massive walls slowly crumbled into ruins over the centuries.

Of course, if these prophecies have already been completely fulfilled, then there is no reason we should require a literal, rebuilt Babylon in the future.

But if their complete fulfillment is still future, then we have no choice but to look forward to that fulfillment in the end times.

And that's part of the problem here. Both Isaiah and Jeremiah use a healthy dose of what I like to refer to as "apocalyptic hyperbole" in describing Babylon's fall. And by that I simply mean powerful, colorful, and evocative words and phrases that paint a vivid, often terrifying picture of what God intends to accomplish, which is frequently connected with His judgment on some city, nation, or people group.

In using such language, however, Isaiah and Jeremiah sometimes describe things in ways that don't correspond with the literal details of what occurred in the fall of Babylon in 539 BC. But we can't discount the possibility that they are using such language to magnify and glorify what God said He would do.

Or should we ignore the events of 539 BC and await a literal fulfillment of these prophecies concerning the destruction of Babylon? Or should we interpret the word "city" figuratively and go in a different direction??

Welcome to the prophetic crossroads.

The point is that many prophecy people argue that the context in each of these two prophetic passages skips by the sixth century BC, and speaks directly to the end times as does Revelation 17–18 (some say Isaiah and Jeremiah are speaking to both 539 BC and the end times). This makes them argue that there must be a real humdinger of a fall of Babylon in our future in which the prophets' graphic words are literally fulfilled.

And that requires a rebuilt Babylon.

So, for those who see the need for a literal, rebuilt Babylon during the Tribulation, the argument goes basically like this:

1. Both Isaiah and Jeremiah were prophesying in regard to the end times (or at least their prophecies can be viewed as extending to the end times).

2. Their prophecies concerning the fall of Babylon were clearly never fulfilled in history, at least not in the literal sense.

3. Since Revelation 17–18 clearly draws upon these two prophetic passages, John must be expanding on these prophecies and describing a yet future literal fulfillment of Babylon's destruction.

4. And that requires a rebuilt Babylon. Q.E.D.

But others ague that this is not necessarily required based on what I said about apocalyptic hyperbole. Your quarter, your call.

• Hey, what about Edom, Moab, and Ammon?!

Another problem we run into in regard to interpreting Revelation 17–18 as requiring Babylon to be rebuilt in the end times so it can experience God's prophesied judgment during the Tribulation has to do with other biblical cities and areas that have been promised something quite similar.

And they have bitten the historical dust just like Babylon.

Case in point: Edom, Moab, and Ammon. In Ezekiel 35, the prophet talks about how God will judge people groups who have long hated and fought against His people Israel, and Ezekiel prophesies against Mount Seir. Mount Seir includes Edom, Moab, and Ammon, and in verse 14 the prophet writes:

¹⁴Thus said the Lord GOD; When the whole earth rejoices, I will make you desolate. ["You" refers to Mount Seir: Edom, Moab, and Ammon.]

(Ezekiel 35:14 AKJV / emphasis & [comments] added)

Now, some people pin this to historical times, and they could be right. Others say it is an end-time judgment on all of Israel's enemies in that region, and they could be right. Some say the most likely time when "the whole earth rejoices" would be the climax of the Great Tribulation when God finally judges His enemies and establishes the kingdom He promised His people so long ago. But here's the problem:

If God judges and destroys Edom, Moab, and Ammon in the Tribulation (as He does Babylon), then does that mean these three kingdoms must be literally reconstructed to their biblical form, just like the city of Babylon??

And if not, why not? Why should we require a literal, rebuilt Babylon that will be judged and destroyed by God in the Great Tribulation, but not a literal, rebuilt Edom, Moab, and Ammon if these will also be judged and destroyed around the same time by the same God? Why does Babylon deserve special treatment?

And the walls came a-tumblin' down: While I'm at it, note that if we need a rebuilt Babylon to fulfill the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and John, we need a Babylon that resembles the original. Sources differ, but we need a Babylon with something like 50–60 miles of walls that were about 80 feet thick and over 300 feet tall. The Babylonians held chariot races on top of these walls! And if Jeremiah says her walls must be thrown down, that means our literal, rebuilt Babylon must have walls for this to be fulfilled in the end times.

And we're talkin' W-A-L-L-S.

Anything less just doesn't cut the literal mustard, all while the results of the best efforts at "rebuilding" Babylon wouldn't make a decent amusement park.

In reality, most commentators believe prophecies of such end-time judgments should be interpreted to mean that the regions formerly occupied by those people groups will experience some kind of judgment in the Tribulation. And as I said, some take such prophecies in a broader sense to refer to eschatological judgment on all of Israel's regional enemies in a collective sense.

• A little of this, a little of that.

Many who interpret Revelation 17–18 as speaking to a literal, rebuilt Babylon in the end times make the following argument:

"It's clear that Revelation 17–18 draws heavily from Isaiah 13–14 and Jeremiah 50–51 concerning Babylon's destruction, and so John must also be focusing on Babylon in a literal sense. Thus John must be rehashing the same prophecies in regard to Babylon's final, end-time destruction."

It's true that John does draw from both Isaiah and Jeremiah's prophecies, but there are problems with this argument. The problem is that in Revelation 17–18 John also draws from Old Testament prophecies concerning a number of other cities, and in so doing effectively creates a prophetic composite of an end-time "Babylon" that hasn't necessarily been revealed to modern readers yet. Two of the prime candidates are as follows:

Rome:

Back in John's day, few people would have missed the reference to a city that sits on seven hills or mountains (Rev. 17:9), which had long been and still is to this day a symbol of Rome. Not only that, but the word "Babylon" was often used by first-century believers to refer to Rome, which was the world's capital of idolatry and religious persecution.

Jerusalem:

Throughout the Old Testament, the word "harlot" is used in reference to a disobedient and idolatrous Israel (2 Chron. 21:11; Ezek. 16:15, etc.), and John uses the word "harlot" here in his prophecy against Babylon (Rev. 17:5). Not only that, but John's description of the woman's garments (Rev. 17:4) clearly calls to mind the garments of Israel's high priest (Exod. 28:5).

Similarly, Revelation 17–18 can also be said to draw references to Sodom and Gomorrah, Tyre, Edom, and Nineveh, but I won't take the time to go down these particular rabbit holes because the details are not essential to the point I want to make.

The point is that what this suggests to us is that instead of insisting that Revelation 17–18 must be speaking exclusively of a literal, rebuilt Babylon as many believe, perhaps we should consider the possibility that John's prophecy points to all of these cities in a collective sense, and for a reason. And that reason may be that John's prophecy is actually painting a composite picture of something that didn't exist in his day, and that won't be revealed until a time preordained by God. And that could conceivably be the Antichrist's kingdom.

• The devil is in the details.

Many people who adhere to the view that Babylon must literally be rebuilt in the end times fly right by one small detail that constitutes a key difference between the Babylon of Jeremiah 51 and that of Revelation 18. The following two passages reveal this minor but telling detail.

In Jeremiah 51, we are told this:

⁶³And it shall be, when you have made an end of reading this book, that you shall bind a stone to it, and cast it into the middle of Euphrates: [i.e. into the middle of a river] ⁶⁴And you shall say, Thus shall Babylon sink, and shall not rise from the evil that I will bring on her:

(Jeremiah 51:63–64a AKJV / emphasis & [comments] added)

But in Revelation 18, we are told this:

²¹And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, [i.e. into the sea, not a river] saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

(Revelation 18:21 AKJV / emphasis & [comments] added)

The literal city of Babylon was on the Euphrates River, but nearly 300 miles from the nearest sea (which would have been the Persian Gulf). A river and a sea are two very different things. Follow along carefully:

• If the angel casts the stone into the Euphrates River, then he is not throwing it into the sea.

• If the angel casts the stone into the sea, then he is not throwing it into the Euphrates River.

There are a number of differences between Revelation 17–18 and both Isaiah 13–14 and Jeremiah 50–51, and this may well be the most trivial of the bunch. But it's still a difference that raises legitimate questions about whether or not Revelation 17–18 is talking about a literal, rebuilt city of Babylon or something different and perhaps a bit more more figurative.

Or perhaps I should say a bit more mysterious.

• It's a mystery.

At this point, I hope that at the very least I have impressed upon you the fact that properly interpreting Revelation 17–18 is no easy task, and even the most popular views have at least some weaknesses and difficulties, some of which are not easy to effectively answer.

But there is one extremely important detail in John's prophecy that many good people seem to just blow right by as it if were a triviality that didn't really matter or mean much. And that one little detail lays it all to rest, and tells us in no uncertain terms that we will never know the correct interpretation of Revelation 17–18 with certainty until God chooses to reveal it to us. And that detail is one single word:

⁵And on her forehead a name was written, "MYSTERY, [Greek: mustérion] BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF THE PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH."

(Revelation 17:5 / emphasis & [comments] added)

And that one single word would be "mystery." In reality, using the word "mystery" here is almost redundant, because virtually everything in these two chapters is an impenetrable mystery that people have been arguing about for the last two thousand years and continue to argue about to this day.

Recall, however, that the Greek word mustérion John uses in this verse has a special meaning throughout the New Testament, and I'll defer to Strong's Lexicon for the details:

In the New Testament, "mustérion" refers to a divine secret or truth that is hidden from human understanding but revealed by God through His Spirit. [When He's good and ready to reveal it, that is.] It often pertains to God's redemptive plan, which was once concealed but is now disclosed to believers. The term underscores the idea that certain aspects of God's will and purpose are beyond human comprehension until God chooses to reveal them.

(emphasis & [comments] added)

— Strong's Lexicon [Source]

Note also that when the angel begins to tell John about the "mystery" in Revelation 17:7, it becomes clear that the word "mystery" applies to pretty much the entire prophecy, not just the details concerning the city he refers to as "Babylon the Great." Then the angel proceeds to use other symbols to "explain" the mystery, so at the end of the day it's all still a bit mysterious.

And that's the point. John's vision concerning Babylon is a mustérion, and by definition that means its true meaning will remain a mystery until the time comes for God to reveal it to us—which will be whenever all this begins to unfold with undeniable clarity.

• Time-bloat.

One final point that I want to mention has about as much to do with plain old ordinary common sense as it does with interpreting the text of Scripture.

And it is a point that virtually nobody ever seems to stop and consider.

I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard someone casually make a remark like the following:

"Revelation 17–18 is clearly telling us that during the Tribulation, Babylon will be rebuilt to its former glory and become the seat of the Antichrist's global government, a global religion, and a global economic system."

Can I get an amen. But what say we pause for a moment and start thinking like civil engineers, shall we?

Have you ever stopped to consider how long it would take to build a world-class city pretty much from scratch? And that is basically what we are talking about here. Those with the literal view see this Babylon the Great that John is prophesying about as a shiny new metropolis that is the political, economic, and religious powerhouse of the entire world—the seat of a global government, a global economic system, and a global religion. For them, Babylon is a literal city that according to Revelation 17:18 will reign over the kings of the earth. And again, they might be right.

Of course, those with alternative viewpoints might argue that a city cannot literally rule over the kings of the earth—only a system of global government can do that. So, they might say, get over the idea that John's Babylon the Great has to refer to a literal city. And in response, others would likely accuse them of nitpicking. But nitpicking or no, the point is this:

When people talk about such a city being built during the seven-year Tribulation, they have entered the prophetic twilight zone.

I did a bit of reading online about the building of cities just to satisfy my curiosity, and of course opinions vary widely. It obviously depends on a number of factors, and estimates range from a blazing, turbo-charged five years to a laboriously long 30–40 years. I read enough to convince me, however, that a realistic estimate for the building of a powerhouse of a city with today's technology that would warrant being called "Babylon the Great" would likely be in the 10–15 year range (and even that may be lowballing it).

So, let's dispense with the idea that this shiny new Babylon is built during the Tribulation. I'm sorry, but that's bordering on the absurd—that's just not gonna happen. It simply makes no sense.

Let's think this through for a moment: Revelation 6:2 seems to indicate that the Antichrist begins his meteoric rise to global power around the beginning of the Tribulation (going out "conquering and to conquer"), and his actual 42-month kingdom begins at its midpoint. If a literal Babylon would take 10–15 years to build, for one thing that would confirm what Scripture seems to indicate, which is that this global system is already in place when the Antichrist assumes power in his kingdom. In other words, before the midpoint of the Tribulation, that literal Babylon would need to be finished and ready to go.

Not for him: I believe that the system of global government the Antichrist assumes control of was not created for him—it appears that he works himself into the right place at the right time and when that right time comes, Satan arranges for his man to take the reins of power. Satan will have groomed this man for such a role in the end times, and the Antichrist takes control of a global system that has already been put in place.

But if this rebuilt Babylon is to be the seat of the Antichrist's kingdom (which begins at the midpoint of the Tribulation), and only the giddiest of optimists would say that the construction of this literal Babylon has so much as gotten off the ground, it would tell us that the midpoint of the Tribulation is at least 10–15 years in the future (assuming construction began today). That, in turn, tells us that the treaty of Daniel 9:27 that launches the Tribulation is at least 7–12 years away—let's just say about a decade. And that is theoretically possible.

But that presents us with the $64,000 question:

Q. How does that jive with the current flow of prophetic events?

This is sure to raise some questions in the minds of many prophecy watchers. Obviously I can't sit here and tell you that things can't work out this way, because they can. But to many watchmen, I'm sure putting off the launching of Tribulation for another decade (or more) would seem like a bit of a stretch considering the way the prophetic scenario is advancing and rapidly congealing. On the plus side, however, don't forget one important fact:

The good news is that this "time-bloat"

issue has nothing to do with the Rapture.

The Rapture could happen today, and the

end-time scenario would shift into overdrive.

The bottom line is that this literal, rebuilt Babylon point of view forces us to fundamentally reassess our ideas about the timing of key end-time events, and consider ways to fit a bigger piece into the puzzle. As a result, this time-bloat factor the literal view unavoidably introduces might cause some to discount the literal interpretation of Revelation 17–18 and consider other interpretive angles. And that's the whole point:

There are other interpretive angles to consider.

Silly old Satan

As you can see, I'm really not here to sell you anything in this article. I just want to emphasize that there are plenty of good people with different views of the interpretation of John's prophecy in Revelation 17–18, and get across to you the fact that those views invariably have questions associated with them that are not always easy to answer. And in the end...

I am convinced that the Word itself clearly tells us that none of us will ever know the mystery of this prophecy for certain until God reveals it.

Many do not see the requirement for a literal, rebuilt city of Babylon, so at least they can say goodbye to the time-bloat issue, for one thing. Some see John's prophecy as simply speaking to a global leader who, along with a global religion, a global government, and a global economic system, will rule the world in the end times and will hunt down and execute millions of believers in the Tribulation with no need for a literal, rebuilt Babylon on the Euphrates River.

Some see Revelation 17–18 speaking of a literal city, but just not a rebuilt Babylon. As I mentioned, some believe John is speaking of Rome or Jerusalem. Some even say Mecca, although that's based on the assumption that the global religion in the end times is Islam (and they assume this because they believe the Antichrist is a Muslim).

Although it is a popular view, I disagree with the idea that the global religion of the end times is Islam (in spite of the fact that I agree with the argument that the Antichrist will likely be from a Muslim background). I think jumping to the conclusion that Islam in its current form will be the global religion of the Antichrist's kingdom is a weak view born largely of convenience that ignores a wealth of compelling facts (although it does sell a lot of books on prophecy).

Personally, I believe the end-time global religion will be something that leaves Islam in the proverbial dust. I've written about this before, but I strongly suspect it will involve supposed contact with a phony alien race that allegedly seeks to help mankind evolve spiritually, get through the coming time of "earth changes" (i.e. the judgments of the Tribulation), and stop foolishly clinging to archaic myths such as the Bible. And anyone who doesn't go all in on this will be seen as a danger to the future of the earth and of the human race, and will have to be eliminated for the good of all of mankind.

Hey, if I'm wrong, then ever since 1947*, silly old Satan has been wasting his time trying to convince the world there are aliens out there who have been visiting us for years in their super-duper spacecraft (that inexplicably keep crashing in the desert on a regular basis) and who are just dying to introduce themselves to us and show off their cool technology.

(*And I'm sure it's just a bizarre coincidence that the UFO/alien narrative was born near Roswell, New Mexico the moment it became clear that the U.N. would approve the establishment of an independent nation for the Jews in accordance with Bible prophecy.)

And I can't discount the possibility that the same silly old Satan has been the one who has tried and failed numerous times to get people to rebuild the ancient city of Babylon into a city from which his man the Antichrist will rule the world, presumably because he holds to the literal view of Revelation 17–18 with its rebuilt Babylon we have been discussing in this article.

No? Hey, if God says something in Scripture is a mustérion, I guaran-dog-tee you Satan is in the same position we're in:

He ain't gonna know exactly how to interpret it either until God reveals it.

From Greg Lauer @ A Little Strength—APR '25

Older Post