I would recommend that before you begin, decide whether you want to approach your study from the perspective of one of these two time frames:
The Revelation was written after A.D. 70 (e.g., after the destruction of Jerusalem.)
The Revelation was written before A.D. 70.
If you choose the former, you already know everything you need to know, because the book can mean anything; and I do mean anything! There are a gazillion books, commentaries, and articles on the Revelation over the past 1500 years, or so, with about the same number of different interpretations.
However, if you choose the latter, your interpretation will most likely concentrate on the early Christian Church, its persecution by the Jews and Emperor Nero, and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies.
I, personally, would start out by assuming John meant “exactly” what he wrote: that he was writing to the early Christians of the Seven Churches in Asia as instructed by the angel of the Lord. I qualified “exactly” because we all know there is a lot of symbolism in the book; but I would assume the symbolism could be understood by its target audience: the early Christian Church.
The first obstacle I had to overcome was the belief in the late date of the book, generally determined to be A.D. 90-95. If that were true, the interpretation of the book would be much as it is today: one man’s interpretation is as good as the next, limited only by one’s imagination.
However, once I overcame that obstacle I was able to faithfully proceed knowing that the early date of the book was far more likely.
From a biblical perspective, there are many reasons to believe Babylon the Great was the Jerusalem of 70 A.D. These are only a few:
1) The angel of Jesus declared the events would "shortly come to pass." Chronologically, nothing occurred at that time in history with the magnitude of the destruction of Babylon the Great other than the destruction of Jerusalem.
2) The sins of Babylon the Great were virtually identical to those of Jerusalem: both had the blood of the prophets on their hands:
This is Babylon the Great:
"And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration." (Revelation 17:6, Babylon)
"And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth." (Revelation 18:24, Babylon)
“Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.” (Revelation 18:20, Babylon)
This is Jerusalem:
"Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!" (Luke 13:33-34, Jerusalem)
". . . I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation." (Luke 11:49-51, Jerusalem)
"For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22, Jerusalem)
Note that in each case the destruction of the cities was determined by God as vengeance for the blood of the prophets and other holy men.
Both cities committed whoredom:
“For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.” (Revelation 19:2, Babylon)
"Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations,…Wherefore, O harlot, hear the word of the Lord: Thus saith the Lord God; Because thy filthiness was poured out, and thy nakedness discovered through thy whoredoms with thy lovers, and with all the idols of thy abominations, and by the blood of thy children, which thou didst give unto them;” (Ezekiel 16:2, 35-36, Jerusalem.)
There are many references to the whoredom (or harlotry) of Jerusalem and Israel.
Both cities were made desolate:
“… for in one hour is she made desolate.” (Revelation 18:19, Babylon)
“Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” (Matthew 23:38, Jerusalem)
“Then will I cause to cease from the cities of Judah, and from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride: for the land shall be desolate.” (Jeremiah 7:34, Jerusalem)
Compare the last verse about Jerusalem and Judea with this one about Babylon the Great:
“And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee:” (Revelation 18:24, Babylon)
There were two “witnesses” mentioned in the Revelation that prophesied “a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth:”
"And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." (Rev 11:8)
The “great city” in the Revelation was Babylon, and our Lord was crucified in Jerusalem.
Anyway, those verses provided me with sufficient faith to believe the two cities were probably the same, and that John wrote the book prior to A.D. 70.
There is more in the gospels relating to the destruction of Jerusalem that ties it to the book of the Revelation. In the Epistles there is the occasional verse that explains parts of the Revelation referencing the heavenly city, New Jerusalem, located on the heavenly mount Sion, as follows:
"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant . . ." (Hebrews 12:22-24. See also Rev 14:1-4; 1 Peter 2:3-10; Romans 9:29-33; Ephesians 2:18-22; Isaiah 8:14 and 28:14-18; and Psalms 118:22-23)
The understanding that mount Sion in the New Testament is a heavenly place, and not the physical Mount Zion of Israel, helps in the interpretation of the Revelation.
Now, for some history:
Flavius Josephus was a Jewish priest, military general, and a historian. As a general he was captured early in the Jewish-Roman War, and was spared his life or imprisonment by his accurate prediction of the destiny of the Roman general, Vespasian. He was instead “rewarded” a ring-side seat during the war. His classic book, “The Wars of the Jews” [a.k.a. “Wars”], which includes many details of the destruction of Jerusalem, has been cited by nearly every Biblical scholar over the centuries; and his confirmation of the validity of the scriptures, from Moses to St John, has become legendary.
For example, in “Wars,” Book V, Chapter V, it is written:
"The [catapult] engines . . . were admirably contrived; but still more extraordinary ones belonged to the tenth legion: those that threw darts and those that threw stones were more forcible and larger than the rest, by which they not only repelled the excursions of the Jews, but drove those away that were upon the walls also. Now the stones that were cast were of the weight of a talent, and were carried two furlongs [1/4 mile] and further." (my brackets )
Compare the highlighted part with this verse in the Revelation:
"And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great." (Revelation 16:21)
Note the same contextual use of the words "stone" and “weight of a talent” in both. That is too much of a “coincidence” to ignore.
This is the passage that many historians have used to declare a late date for the book:
“We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.” (Vol 1, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V.30.3)
But Irenaeus wrote this two paragraphs earlier:
“Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies, and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, according to the Greek mode of calculation by the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six;” (Vol 1, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V.30.1)
If John’s vision was “almost in our day” (the usual interpretation,) then why are John’s books containing the vision considered “ancient” by the same man in the same book, in almost the same chapter?
“Almost in our day” and “ancient” do not grammatically relate. Since there are no other sources for late-dating, I am obliged to assume that which was seen “almost in our time” was not the vision, and that a late-date cannot be proven unless new sources are discovered.
Dan