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
>>>No He didn’t but I’m not going to discuss it with you. I’ve seen your hermeneutics and it’s so far off there’s little sense in wasting my time with you.<<<
If I couldn’t defend my eschatology, I would change it.
Philip
>>>You are rejecting all scholarship on this. They were HEBREW believers to whom he was writing.<<<
I am aware of that. I have argued that same point in the past week or so. I guess I don’t understand your point.
Philip
What does “many waters” mean? Where can I find that in the scriptures?
I am unsure how the catholic church is relevant, unless it killed all the prophets.
I believe the cup is in reference to a prophecy by Jeremiah where God sent the armies of ancient Babylon against ancient Jerusalem and the cities of Judah (Jer 25.) The cup was in remembrance of the first desolation of Jerusalem, I presume:
16
And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
It says that Babylon the Great was responsible for the blood of the saints, and the prophets; like Jerusalem.
“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)
All this is meaningless unless the Papacy is responsible for the blood of all the prophets, which it is not, nor ever shall be.
He was talking to the early Christians to get out of Jerusalem. It appeared to be a follow-through of his warnings in the Olivet Discourse of Matt 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13, where he warned Christians to get out of Judea when they saw certain signs.
There were no Muslims in the first century.
>>>The Church and her daughters are all over the world, many waters which represent multitudes of people.<<<
I am aware of that. I thought you had scripture that identified them. I found the following from a commentator that explains it well:
"It only remains to notice one other feature in the vision. The woman is represented as ‘sitting upon many waters,’ and in the fifteenth verse these waters are said to signify ‘peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.’ The mystical Babylon, like her prototype the literal Babylon, is said to ‘sit upon many waters.’ The prophet Jeremiah thus addresses ancient Babylon: ‘O thou that dwellest upon many waters’ (Jer. 51:13), and this description appears to be equally appropriate to Jerusalem.
The influence exercised by the Jewish race in all parts of the Roman Empire previous to the destruction of Jerusalem was immense; their synagogues were to be found in every city, and their colonies took root in every land. We see in Acts ii. the marvellous ramifications of the Hebrew race in foreign countries, from the enumeration of the different nations which were represented in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost: ‘There were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven, . . . Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians.’ Jerusalem might truly be said to ‘sit upon many waters,’ that is, to exercise a mighty influence upon ‘peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.’" [James Stuart Russell, The Parousia, 1878]
>>>He did not see a vision of killing saints he saw something that he admired.<<<
John was a Jew, and he was admiring Jerusalem, before the destruction. It was the showcase city of the middle east. Josephus wrote about how magnificent it was. There doesn't appear to be any exaggeration. The spoils, alone, were magnificent: the spoils that were carried triumphantly through the streets of Rome by the Roman armies.
>>>… look at rev 17:12
"And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.<<<
They were most likely ten legions of the Roman armies since the Roman armies actually destroyed Jerusalem, made her desolate, and burned her with fire.
>>>The ten horns as it states in verse 12 had no kingdom at that time.<<<
Correct. That is why I believe they were the generals in charge of the Roman legions. It is possible the kings were the governors of ten provinces; but I don't recall them having much to do with the war. I am still fuzzy on that one.
>>>I don't see how found and responsible can have the same meaning.<<<
Then why the vengeance against her?
“Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.” (Rev 18:20, KJV)
Jerusalem paid for those crimes. I doubt any other city would be required to pay for the same crimes.
>>>… it appears to me the great whore is living in luxury on the claims that she is the woman that was taken into the wilderness for 1260 days but it is not.<<<
I have read nothing linking Babylon with the woman that brought forth the man child. But it is a fact that Jerusalem was a very prosperous city for that era.
>>>This is meaningless because the ten kings who are to destroy the whore had no kingdom yet, rev 17:12<<<
I don't follow you. If the people didn't leave before the armies arrived and became entrenched, they couldn't leave. If they didn't leave, they would be "partakers of her sins."
Philip
>>>The ten horns as it states in verse 12 had no kingdom at that time.<<<
Correct. That is why I believe they were the generals in charge of the Roman legions. It is possible the kings were the governors of ten provinces; but I don’t recall them having much to do with the war. I am still fuzzy on that one.
I looked back through your posts to see what you are talking about. I misread your last clause in this post, so I will respond now.
I don't believe that Peter wrote the epistle anywhere but Jerusalem. Paul and fellow church leader, James, addressed their intended audiences in similar manners, as follows:
"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Peter 1:1 KJV)
"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting." (James 1:1 KJV)
It is also written that Peter was married. There is no proof that Marcus was not his biological son, nor that Peter and his family lived anywhere but Jerusalem.
Philip
Almost directly south of Baghdad. More accurately south of Baghdad along the Tigris river:) Modern city is Al Hillah.
Sorry but been to both places and had the opportunity to view the ruins. Locals tried telling us a huge midden heap was the tower of Babel as well:)
Still loads of digging and finding left to do on the ruins if they can figure out how to stop killing each other and let others help them do the digging.
Such vast petroleum reserves in Iraq that if they ever got their act together they would give the Saudis and Gulf states some real competition.
Which armies did Christ send to destroy Jerusalem in 70AD? Well the indisputable fact is Roman legions did that I agree. However the prophetic text you base that on is Revelation 19 which is error in that the hosts in Revelation led by Christ at the second coming destroy the armies of the beast and kings of the nations.
The Roman armies were never crushed and left for bird food and neither was the “beast” Nero who died two years before the sack of Jerusalem. So Christ “leading His armies” to destroy Jerusalem and that army being the 70AD Romans does not fit Revelation 19 at all. The Romans were victorious and the beast is defeated in Revelation 19. No matter of allegory or spiritualizing can fix this error. One cannot be both.
I replied: That prayer was for old Jerusalem, which Christ sent his armies to destroy in 70 AD. The new covenant fulfilled the promise to David: that the fruit of his loin (Christ) would sit on his throne forever. Acts 2:22-36<<<
After studying Ps 122, I am beginning to believe that I may have misunderstood that passage. This is a part you didn't reference:
"Jerusalem is builded as a city that is compact together: Whither the tribes go up, the tribes of the Lord, unto the testimony of Israel, to give thanks unto the name of the Lord. For there are set thrones of judgment, the thrones of the house of David. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee." (Ps 122:3-6 KJV)
Now I am beginning to believe that David is talking about New Jerusalem, the heavenly city on mount Sion. Jesus had promised his disciples that they would judge from twelve thrones:
"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Mat 19:28 KJV)
Thrones and judgement are also mentioned at the first resurrection:
"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." (Rev 20:4 KJV)
I have no references that indicate there were so-called "thrones of judgement" in the days of David. Therefore, I believe he was talking about the thrones in New Jerusalem.
Philip
>>>>Which armies did Christ send to destroy Jerusalem in 70AD? Well the indisputable fact is Roman legions did that I agree. However the prophetic text you base that on is Revelation 19 which is error in that the hosts in Revelation led by Christ at the second coming destroy the armies of the beast and kings of the nations.<<<
Welcome. We have already hashed this out; but so we do not disrupt the theme of this thread too much, I’ll make a deal with you:
If you will explain to everyone how both Jerusalem and Babylon-the-Great can be responsible for shedding the same blood, and yet are two different cities about 2,000 years apart, I will rehash Chapter 19 with you, for old time’s sake.
Philip
It’s good that you’re still thinking.
Well first you need to come clean with a lot of these first time posters to your eschatology vanity threads. You should tell them that the Bible is all time past, 70AD fulfilled all prophecies, the second coming is past, the first resurrection was Jewish and happened in 70AD, and Revelation was penned sometime before 68AD.
You need to tell these folks these things because frankly their responses tell me they are confused on where you are coming from.
>>>Well first you need to come clean with a lot of these first time posters to your eschatology vanity threads. You should tell them that the Bible is all time past, 70AD fulfilled all prophecies, the second coming is past, the first resurrection was Jewish and happened in 70AD, and Revelation was penned sometime before 68AD.<<<
As many times as I have explained my interpretations, posting scripture after scripture in support, and you still get it wrong? It certainly seems you are being intentionally misleading, as do some of your “everything happens in the future so I must be right” cohorts.
You come clean on what you just wrote, and we will talk. Otherwise, I don’t think we have anything to discuss. If you cannot be honest, I don’t want to waste my time with you.
BTW, who is the Antichrist this week?
Philip
The word Babylon means confusion, and God is not the author or maker of confusion. Check out Ezekiel 16, the whole chapter regarding what the Heavenly Father had to say about Jerusalem.
Jesus Christ will reign from Jerusalem in the future and as the holy city, it is witten about more than other cities in Scripture.
Rev discusses a New Jerusalem descending from heaven.
Babylon the Great is described as being destroyed and never to be rebuilt.
FWIW, considering Saddam Hussein was rebuilding ancient Babylon, it is probably more likely that other world centers of power are destroyed and Babylon is rebuilt as a center of worldly power prior to the Great Tribulation. Also considering an army of demons is loosed from this vicinity, I suspect it also becomes a center of satanic worship.
Unless they allegorize so much of scripture as to render it totally meaningless. Which is what preterists do.
Please let me know what information I have incorrect in post #72.
You see Revelation and OT prophecies complete circa 70AD? You do therefore claim Revelation was penned at least 2-4 years prior to that? You have stated the second coming of Christ happened after the fall of Jerusalem circa 70AD? And the first resurrection at the same time and that was for the early Jewish Christians?
What did I get incorrect? Or have some of your views changed?
Jesus Christ already reigns from Jerusalem: the heavenly New Jerusalem. That is his Church, and he is there to stay, except for maybe the final judgement.
>>>Rev discusses a New Jerusalem descending from heaven.<<<
Correct. But taken in context, John was carried away in the spirit: so everything he saw was spiritual, as follows:
"And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God," (Rev 21:10 KJV)
John was on or near a great and high mountain when he saw the holy city. That spiritual imagery is used in other places in the scriptures:
"But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it. And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." (Mic 4:1-2 KJV)
In the old testament prophecies, when referencing the Church, the mountain is called mount Zion and the Church is called Jerusalem. In the new testament, the mountain is called mount Sion, and the holy city New Jerusalem is called the Church, 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 ..." (Heb 12:22-24 KJV)
The imagery of those coming to New Jerusalem in the Revelation is similar to that written in Micah:
"And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it." (Rev 21:24 KJV)
The Lamb is the light of it (Rev 21:23.) The last two books of Revelation go into some detail about the holy city; but Heb 12:22-24 provides the best understanding, in my opinion.
Paul wrote about the two Jerusalems, and what they represent, in this manner:
"… for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." (Gal 4:24-26 KJV)
So, in going from the old testament to the new, we went from old Jerusalem to new Jerusalem, and from bondage to freedom. Note also the imagery of heavenly Jerusalem as the Mother of Us All. Do you think that might be the woman in Revelation 12 that brings forth the man-child? Recall the devil went after the "remnant" of her seed, which believe in Christ. That interpretation is not without scriptural support:
"Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children." (Isa 66:7-8 KJV)
>>>Babylon the Great is described as being destroyed and never to be rebuilt. FWIW, considering Saddam Hussein was rebuilding ancient Babylon, it is probably more likely that other world centers of power are destroyed and Babylon is rebuilt as a center of worldly power prior to the Great Tribulation. Also considering an army of demons is loosed from this vicinity, I suspect it also becomes a center of satanic worship.<<<
LOL! If you believe the Revelation speaks exclusively of the future, the sky is the limit. It can go anywhere your imagination takes you. Some with more vivid imaginations, like the false prophets Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye, have gotten filthy rich from "Antichrist" book and movie sales.
I personally believe most of the Revelation refers to the brutal and widespread persecution of the early Christian church by Emperor Nero and Apostate Judaism; and the judgement against them: in particular against Jerusalem in A.D. 70, as Christ prophesied in the Olivet discourse (Matt 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21.)
Philip
Good find! I had forgotten about this chapter. This is one of the places where the Lord refers to Jerusalem as the whore and the harlot, in similar manner to how he refers to Babylon the Great in the Revelation. There are many examples in the chapter. This is one:
"But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was. And of thy garments thou didst take, and deckedst thy high places with divers colours, and playedst the harlot thereupon: the like things shall not come, neither shall it be so. Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them," (Eze 16:15-17 KJV)
And this is the judgement, in part:
"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; Behold, therefore I will gather all thy lovers, with whom thou hast taken pleasure, and all them that thou hast loved, with all them that thou hast hated; I will even gather them round about against thee, and will discover thy nakedness unto them, that they may see all thy nakedness. And I will judge thee, as women that break wedlock and shed blood are judged; and I will give thee blood in fury and jealousy. And I will also give thee into their hand, and they shall throw down thine eminent place, and shall break down thy high places: they shall strip thee also of thy clothes, and shall take thy fair jewels, and leave thee naked and bare. They shall also bring up a company against thee, and they shall stone thee with stones, and thrust thee through with their swords. And they shall burn thine houses with fire, and execute judgments upon thee in the sight of many women: and I will cause thee to cease from playing the harlot, and thou also shalt give no hire any more." (Eze 16:36-41 KJV)
Recall that in the Revelation the Lord called Jerusalem "Sodom and Egypt." Here the Lord says Jerusalem's sins were worse than Sodom's. That is pretty bad. Jerusalem was truly the Great Whore!
"As I live, saith the Lord God, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." (Eze 16:48-49 KJV)
And this is Jerusalem's destiny:
"When thy sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their former estate, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former estate, then thou and thy daughters shall return to your former estate." (Eze 16:55 KJV)
I doubt Sodom and Samaria will return to their former estates any time soon. But until they do, Jerusalem cannot return to its former estate. I hope you understand the implications of that verse.
The Lord also tells them that they broke the old covenant, and he will deal with them:
"For thus saith the Lord God; I will even deal with thee as thou hast done, which hast despised the oath in breaking the covenant." (Eze 16:59 KJV)
But he provided a new covenant:
"Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant. Then thou shalt remember thy ways, and be ashamed, when thou shalt receive thy sisters, thine elder and thy younger: and I will give them unto thee for daughters, but not by thy covenant. And I will establish my covenant with thee; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord: That thou mayest remember, and be confounded, and never open thy mouth any more because of thy shame, when I am pacified toward thee for all that thou hast done, saith the Lord God." (Eze 16:60-63 KJV)
That new covenant is called the New Testament: Hebrews 9:13-28.
Philip
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.