That's the problem, you think it's about the end times. Revelation 17 is about Israel/Jerusalem's judgement. God doesn't refer to unbelievers as the harlot. Israel is a harlot because they were married to God by covenant. Remember? Go to Exodus 24, where Israel makes the covenant. That is why the Harlot of Revelation 17 is a mystery...you have to see the imagery God uses..
Here is a very good but lengthy article on the Rome vs 1st century Jerusalem and Temple
Chris Strevel: Rome or Jerusalem? A Comparative Analysis of the Harlot Imagery in Revelation 17 (2005)
By Chris Strevel
The Roman Interpretation
Preterists are generally divided between two historical referents for the harlot of
Revelation 17 and
18: the ancient cities of Jerusalem and Rome. The latter view is widely supported in preterist circles. It is based on the symbolic identification of Babylon with Rome, a regular designation in the literature of that era and one often encountered in the inspired and uninspired writings of the early church, John’s emphasis on the harlot’s worldwide influence, the immorality and emperor worship of first century Rome, and the moral implications of economic fornication with the harlot.
Moses Stuart, author of the first American commentary on the book of Revelation, E.W. Hengstenberg, and
F.W. Farrar were leading proponents of this view in the 19th century, and it has had many recent advocates including Isbon T. Beckwith, Wilfrid Harrington, Albertus Pieters,
G.K. Beale, and
Greg Bahnsen. In recent studies supporting a Roman identification of the harlot, the commercial or economic interpretation of
Revelation 18 is viewed as providing strong support for this particular view. John was writing to warn the first century Christians against economic involvement with the harlot because of the spiritual pollution that would inevitably result. In his recent book on the subject, Klaybill has written, “These repeated references to socio-economic matters suggest that John saw participation in the imperial economy as an important discipleship issue for people who confessed Jesus as Lord….Only Rome fit the description in the first century, and John reinforces his point with other allusions.” Whether or not this interpretation is correct will depend primarily on a careful investigation of John’s language, organization, and use of Old Testament prophecies. Only after a careful analysis of these may we search for concrete historical realities.
The Jerusalem Interpretation
Strong evidence exists for the view that the harlot is the apostate city of Jerusalem.
Milton Terry and
James Stuart Russell were two leading advocates of this view in the 19th century. A resurgence of this view may be seen in the through the commentaries and writings of J. Massyngberde Ford, Cornelius Vanderwaal, Ken Gentry, and the late
David Chilton. The initial strengths of this view are its conformity to the analogy of Scriptural in determining the significance of “harlot,” consistent application of John’s symbolism, and understanding of the significance of Jerusalem’s fall in A.D. 70 for redemptive history. Gentry summarizes the evidence for the
Jerusalem=harlot interpretation.
Briefly, the evidence for the identifying of Jerusalem as the Harlot is based on the following: (1) Both are called ‘the great city’ (
Rev. 14:8;
11:8). (2) The Harlot is filled with the blood of the saints (cp.
Rev. 16:6;
17:6;
18:21,
24; w/
Matt. 23:34-48;
Luke 13:33;
Acts 7:51,
52). (3) Jerusalem had previously been called by pagan names quite compatible with the designation ‘Babylon’ (cp.
Rev. 14:8 and
17:5 with 11:8). (4) Rome could not fornicate against God, for only Jerusalem was God’s wife (
Rev. 17:2-5; cp.
Isa. 1:20; Jere. 31:31). (5) There is an obvious contrast between the Harlot and the chaste bride (cp.
Rev. 17:2-5 with
Rev. 21:1ff.) that suggests a contrast with the Jerusalem below and the Jerusalem above (
Rev. 21;
2; cp.
Gal. 4:24ff.;
Heb. 12:18). (6) The fact that the Harlot is seated on the seven-headed Beast (obviously representative of Rome) indicates not identify with Rome, but alliance with Rome against Christianity (cp.
Matt. 23:37ff.;
John 19:16ff.;
Acts 17:7).
Thesis Statement
It is my contention that a careful examination of the literary context, prophetic background and language of
Revelation 17 supports the claim that the harlot is the apostate city of Jerusalem as the center of Jewish rebellion against Christ. Through his imagery John intends to paint a startling picture of the apostasy and impending judgment of God upon the old city of Jerusalem, a judgment that was realized in A.D. 70. I do not discount the many striking parallels that exist between John’s description of the harlot and the city of Rome. There are many aspects of the commercial interpretation of
Revelation 18 that are extremely conducive to an identification of Rome as the harlot, and even if one does not conclude that the harlot is Rome, it remains true that spiritual defilement through participation in the imperial cult and its economic system was a legitimate concern in the early church. In the final analysis, the stated theme of Revelation, the analogy of Scripture, the symbolic and thematic unity of Revelation, and clear exegetical indicators force us to conclude that John is referring to the judgment of God against Jerusalem for her centuries of spiritual whoredom and covenant apostasy................................................
Conclusion
It has not been my intention in this paper to explicate every textual detail in chapters 17 and 18 related to the judgment of the great harlot. Rather, I have endeavored to demonstrate that advocates of the Jerusalem=harlot view have a strong case to offer the Church of Christ in her ongoing attempt to correctly understand the final book of our English Bibles. This view is certainly consistent with John’s stated theme: God’s great divorce of Israel and Christ’s judgment upon her. It also does justice to the established biblical usage of the harlot imagery, especially as it pertains to nations that have broken covenant with Jehovah. This interpretation is further supported by the many textual indicators in chapters 14-18 pointing to a Jerusalem referent, John’s usage of “mystery,” and the contrast in Revelation between the chaste Bride of Christ and the apostate Jewish church. The Rome=harlot view, while attractive at certain points, simply cannot be sustained in the light of this evidence.
If that is the case, why do the majority of commentators dismiss the Jerusalem=harlot view with small footnotes and passing allusions? The answer to this question is complex. It centers around the failure of theologians and commentators to grasp or admit the significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 for God’s redemptive program in history. This failure has led to an improper dating (late) for the book of Revelation, and indeed for many New Testament books, as well as improper eschatological schemes based upon futuristic interpretations of New Testament prophecies that had as their primary referent events in the first century. This is not to say, of course, that the judgment of apostate Jerusalem in A.D. 70 is the proper referent of all the prophecies of final judgment found in the New Testament, only that it was an expected event and regular theme found in Jesus, Paul, and John. Some are unwilling to admit this for fear that it will open the door to a hyper-preterism that denies the physical coming of Christ at the end of history. Others do not wish to see certain prophecies in this light because such an admission would require the abandonment of cherished eschatological schemes. Both of these fears are unjustified responses to the claims made in this paper and will result in continued interpretive errors, theological, eschatological, and practical. For in the minds of the biblical authors, this was a theme that desperately needed clarification in the minds of the early Christians, many of whom were Jews or Gentile proselytes who could not imagine Christianity radically severed from its natural center in Jerusalem. Accordingly, it was necessary to teach that God’s redemptive plan for the new covenant age will not be centered in Jerusalem. That city and the nation over which it reigns is apostate. In murdering the Messiah, retaining a priesthood and sacrificial system after the shedding of the Anointed’s blood, and persecuting his Church, the place of that nation and city in God’s plan is irreversibly lost. This event was a dramatic shift from the Jerusalem-based kingdom of God in the Old Testament and certainly required explication from the biblical authors. This is why Jesus spoke so often to the subject, and ultimately why he had John dedicate the final book of the New Testament to the one climactic event that would reveal the end of the old Jewish order in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple environs in A.D. 70.
