Posted on 03/22/2014 1:35:03 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
Was "Babylon The Great" a Symbolic Name for Jerusalem?
Recall that Jesus said:
"… it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem" (Luke 13:33.)
That is a very important statement to keep in mind when considering the following passages: and later in the same chapter of Luke, Jesus added:
"…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 11:47-51 KJV)
That is pretty clear. Jerusalem is responsible for the blood of all the prophets, and at least some of the apostles. There is more in Matthew:
"Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in yoursynagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." (Mat 23:34-36 KJV)
So, Jerusalem was not only responsible for the blood of all the prophets (and some apostles;) but for all the righteous blood shed upon the earth. And vengeance for that blood was required of the generation that Jesus was speaking to.
We all know that is exactly what happened within that generation: the Roman armies completely destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD, fulfilling this prophecy by Jesus:
"And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." (Mat 24:1-2 KJV)
But how do those verses compare to those on Babylon the Great found in the Revelation?
In the Revelation, Babylon the Great is also called the great whore, the mother of harlots, the great city, and the woman. In the context of blood responsibility, John mentions this:
"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." (Rev 17:6, KJV)
The first martyr of Jesus was Stephen, if I recall correctly; and there were many more. The next chapter reveals additional facts:
"And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth." (Rev 18:24, KJV)
But, according to Jesus, Jerusalem is supposed to be responsible for the blood of all the prophets; and Jerusalem is responsible for all the righteous blood? Yet, in the following verse we see that God avenged the blood of the apostles and prophets on Babylon the Great.
“Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.” (Rev 18:20, KJV)
And recall the first scripture at the top:
"… it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem" (Luke 13:33.)
So what do we know:
1. Jerusalem killed many of the apostles, yet their blood was avenged on Babylon the Great
2. Jerusalem is responsible for the blood of all the prophets, yet their blood was avenged on Babylon the Great.
3. Jerusalem was responsible for the blood of all the righteous, yet Babylon the Great was responsible for "all that were slain on the earth."
There are many other references in the Revelation that tie Babylon the Great to old Jerusalem. This is one of many:
"And their dead bodies [the two witnesses] 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 KJV)
It seem our Lord Jesus Christ was killed in both Babylon the Great and Jerusalem. It is difficult to imagine Babylon the Great being any other city than Jerusalem.
Philip
Point out how I misrepresented your position.
The second coming past or future?
The first resurrection past or future?
>>>Point out how I misrepresented your position.<<<
I have told you all along that I am a postmillennialist. And not once have I posted anything that would contradict that. So why do you insist I am something else? Are you just trying to be annoying?
Philip
Post-millennials believe in a second coming yet future and the first resurrection yet future. It is in their church creeds.
I noticed you did not address the questions.
I’ll save you a post. Your next post was going to be “I don’t have to answer your questions.”
But why do you avoid said questions?
>>>Post-millennials believe in a second coming yet future and the first resurrection yet future. It is in their church creeds.<<<
Is that true of all post-millennials, or are you making a general statement?
>>>But why do you avoid said questions?<<<
I didn’t avoid anything. Since you mischaracterized what I believe, without coming to me first, why should I let you off the hook?
I knew you didn’t have an answer. You never seem to have any answers. You seem to be content to be a gate-keeper for the dispensational cult. If that is what you like to do, do it with all your might (Ecc 9:10.)
We are discussing Revelation 20. You may want to look back a bit.
Phil, you are avoiding the questions. You asserted in your previous vanity threads that the first resurrection is past and so is the second coming. How is that mischaracterizing your beliefs?
Note the first group in Revelation 20:6 have part in the first resurrection which is the resurrection of Christ. The second group standing before God (verse 12) are twice referred to as dead.
>>>Phil, you are avoiding the questions. You asserted in your previous vanity threads that the first resurrection is past and so is the second coming. How is that mischaracterizing your beliefs?<<<
You are mischaracterizing your mischaracterization.
That can’t be. The people that were alive when Jesus said those words could not have been the ones who killed Zechariah.
2 Chronicles 24:19 Yet He sent prophets to them to bring them back to the LORD; though they testified against them, they would not listen. 20 Then the Spirit of God came on Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest; and he stood above the people and said to them, "Thus God has said, 'Why do you transgress the commandments of the LORD and do not prosper? Because you have forsaken the LORD, He has also forsaken you.'" 21 So they conspired against him and at the command of the king they stoned him to death in the court of the house of the LORD.…
>>Anyone who has read the scriptures knows that Jesus never said that generation killed Zechariah.<<
Oh really?
Matthew 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
>>Therefore, I must assume you are reading from some worthless dispensational talking points.<<
Your pompous arrogance once again raises it’s ugly head.
Revelation 18 doesn’t say the “whole world”. It says the “earth”.
Revelation 18:11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:
The same Greek word is used 136 times in the New Testament. For instance.
Matthew 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Would you say that God’s will should be done only in that region of the world?
Matthew 9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
Did Jesus only have power in that region of the world?
Luke 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
Was Jesus only concerned with finding faith in that part of the world?
And that happened when?
I can't believe you don't understand what Jesus is saying. Actually, yes I can. Dispensationalism must spiritualize all time contexts, or their entire house of cards crumbles.
Dispensationalists (and futurists in general) would rather you quit reading at this point. But if you want to learn the TRUTH, don't listen to them on anything in the scriptures relating to time context. They have the most warped time interpretations imaginable! They will trick you by taking obscure passages out of context, and claiming it means something else; for example, in this case!
This is what Jesus actually said. He is explaining why they (Scribes and Pharisees) were just like their bloody fathers. In this first passage, he mocks any claim that they would not have committed the crimes of their fathers:
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets." (Mat 23:29-30 KJV)
In the second passage, he lumps them all together (the fathers and the children) as children of Satan and equally responsible for all the blood (theirs and their fathers;) because they would complete or finish the crimes that began with their fathers. Note the Greek for "fill ye up" also translates to "complete or finish yourselves." So they were, as we might say in today's terms, co-conspirators. They all worked for the same devil:
"Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" (Mat 23:31-33 KJV)
Cynical Bear wants you to believe I am making all this up; but Matthew Henry, who penned his commentaries in the 1700's, long before the new-age cult of dispensationalism was invented, wrote:
"The sentence passed upon them. Christ here proceeds… To give them up to sin as irreclaimable (v. 32); Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. If Ephraim be joined to idols, and hate to be reformed, let him alone. He that is filthy, let him be filthy still. Christ knew they were now contriving his death, and in a few days would accomplish it; "Well," saith he, "go on with your plot, take your curse, walk in the way of your heart and in the sight of your eyes, and see what will come of it. What thou doest, do quickly. You will but fill up the measure of guilt, which will then overflow in a deluge of wrath" [Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible Volume V] (my bold)
Therefore, according to Henry, their generation (the scribes and Pharisees: the leadership of Jerusalem) was also responsible for what their fathers did. Jesus emphasized it by stating they were children of Satan (like their fathers, e.g., "ye generation of vipers"):
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44 KJV)
Isaiah prophesied as if the rulers of Jerusalem had made a "covenant" with Satan:
"Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:" (Isa 28:14-15 KJV)
Thus, when Jesus said, "whom ye slew," he was lumping all the co-conspirators together:
"Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." (Mat 23:34-36 KJV)
In summary, Jesus lumped them all together because they were committing the same crimes against God as their fathers, beginning at Cain: namely killing the righteous.
>>>Your pompous arrogance once again raises it’s ugly head.<<<
If you want to know who the pompous really are, go back and read some of our earlier exchanges. I was mostly called a heretic or cultist in those earlier posts. Now I am "pompous?" Any who has been paying attention knows that dispensationalists develop an instant and nasty disposition when anyone challenges the made-up doctrine of their cult.
Philip
You are correct. In Revelation 18:11 that is the Greek word "ghay" or "gh" (Strong's 1093) which means:
"soil; by extension a region, or the solid part or the whole of the terrene globe (including the occupants in each application): — country, earth (-ly), ground, land, world."
>>>The same Greek word is used 136 times in the New Testament. For instance.<<<
>>>Matthew 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.<<<
I counted 225, but who's counting? LOL! The translators had a tendency to use that word in all sorts of questionable ways. Greek scholars have complained about that. For example, here it is translated clearly and appropriately:
"And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel." (Matt 2:21 KJV)
"The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;" (Mat 4:15 KJV)
"And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;" (Mat 27:51)
>>>Would you say that God’s will should be done only in that region of the world?<<<
No; but Jesus was simply comparing spiritual vs carnal realms. That is a completely different context than, for example,
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." (Mat 24:14 KJV)
The "world" came from a different Greek word. There Jesus intended for the gospel to be preached in all the world, which in those days meant the Roman Empire. It was confirmed as fulfilled by Paul:
"For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:" (Col 1:5-6 KJV)
>>>Luke 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?<<<
>>>Was Jesus only concerned with finding faith in that part of the world?<<<
Yes, he was. But only remnant had faith, and were saved.
Philip
>>>The same Greek word is used 136 times in the New Testament. For instance.<<<
>>>I counted 225 ...<<<
I accidentally transposed that number. I actually counted 252.
Philip
Cynical Bear: your link has the following on Daniel 12:
>>>Daniel 12:2 summarizes the two very different fates facing mankind: “Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Everyone will be raised from the dead, but not everyone will share the same destiny. The New Testament reveals the further detail of separate resurrections for the just and the unjust.<<<
Let's see what Daniel 12:2 really says, in context:
"And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." (Dan 12:1-2 KJV)
Notice the "angel" (identified as the "certain man" from 10:5) says, "thy people," twice. The term "thy people" is used 130 times in the old testament, and two times in the new testament; and this is the typical usage:
"A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel." (Luke 2:32)
"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression," (Dan 9:24)
The Hebrew word for "thy people" is translated as follows:
{5971} `am, am; from {6004}; a people (as a congregated unit); specifically, a tribe (as those of Israel); hence (collectively) troops or attendants; figuratively, a flock: — folk, men, nation, people.
Therefore, it would be a stretch to claim that the resurrection in Daniel 12:1-2 was for anyone but the children of Israel. It is also notable that both the just and the unjust were resurrected, some to everlasting life and some to everlasting contempt.
But the most notable point is that this was a partial resurrection: not all were resurrected. The word "many" presumes a partial resurrection. That would make sense historically since some from Judah and Israel were not resurrected or killed; but rather a fraction of the populace were captured and carried off as slaves, or were already scattered and "concealed" in the empire in one manner or another. My ancestors are an example of one of those categories that survived.
That passage in Daniel 12 is referring to the first resurrection (Rev 20:4-6) which occurred around 70 AD, exactly in the generation that Jesus predicted it would happen; and it was only for the children of Israel in order to put the final nail in the coffin of the old covenant and "bury" the former bride of the Lord. The second resurrection (aka, the final judgement in Rev 20:11-15) is the one we should look forward to.
Philip
>>>There is a great misunderstanding about the first and second resurrections. There are only two. The first and the second. The first resurrection includes all believers who are resurrected to eternal life and isn’t just one event. The second includes all unbelievers who are resurrected to judgment. A good explanation can be found here<<<
Cynical Bear: your link has the following on Daniel 12:
>>>Daniel 12:2 summarizes the two very different fates facing mankind: “Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Everyone will be raised from the dead, but not everyone will share the same destiny. The New Testament reveals the further detail of separate resurrections for the just and the unjust.<<<
Let's see what Daniel 12:2 really says, in context:
"And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." (Dan 12:1-2 KJV)
Notice the "angel" (identified as the "certain man" from 10:5) says, "thy people," twice. The term "thy people" is used 130 times in the old testament, and two times in the new testament; and this is the typical usage:
"A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel." (Luke 2:32)
"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression," (Dan 9:24)
The Hebrew word for "thy people" is translated as follows:
{5971} `am, am; from {6004}; a people (as a congregated unit); specifically, a tribe (as those of Israel); hence (collectively) troops or attendants; figuratively, a flock: — folk, men, nation, people.
Therefore, it would be a stretch to claim that the resurrection in Daniel 12:1-2 was for anyone but the children of Israel. It is also notable that both the just and the unjust were resurrected, some to everlasting life and some to everlasting contempt.
But the most notable point is that this was a partial resurrection: not all were resurrected. The word "many" presumes a partial resurrection. That would make sense historically since some from Judah and Israel were not resurrected or killed; but rather a fraction of the populace were captured and carried off as slaves, or were already scattered and "concealed" in the empire in one manner or another. My ancestors are an example of one of those categories that survived.
That passage in Daniel 12 is referring to the first resurrection (Rev 20:4-6) which occurred around 70 AD, exactly in the generation that Jesus predicted it would happen; and it was only for the children of Israel in order to put the final nail in the coffin of the old covenant and "bury" the former bride of the Lord. The second resurrection (aka, the final judgement in Rev 20:11-15) is the one we should look forward to.
Philip
Ah yes!!! So when Jesus said ”whom ye slew” He didn’t really mean ye but was using it for a whole group of people but then switched immediately and placed all the blame for past and future “blood of the righteous” on that specific “generation” alive at that time. Gotcha! That is totally bonkers. Maybe that works in your Philip theology but not so much in credible hermeneutics.
What’s really sad is that you think you have something to teach.
I suppose when you stop looking at the Greek when you think it agrees with your Philip theology you stop looking. But does this γῆς look like this γῆν?
This γῆς has been used 136 times just as I said. This γῆν has been used 78 times and this γῆ has been used 38 times. You lumped them all together (with an LOL mind you) claiming they were all the same. Seriously, do they look the same to you?
You used Matt 2:21 in which this γῆν word is used. Then you used Matt 4:15 in which this γῆ word is used. You seem to be claiming they are all the same word with the same meaning. Do they really look the same to you? Seriously?
Include your cute LOL’s if you wish but your hermeneutics fall apart and your haughty inclusion of half baked Greek makes mockery of your implied superiority.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.