Was Babylon The Great a Symbolic Name for Jerusalem? Part II: Mother of Harlots and Sins of Sodom.

Was "Babylon The Great" a Symbolic Name for Jerusalem? Part II: Mother of Harlots and Sins of Sodom.

Jerusalem was completely destroyed in 70 AD, and over 1.1 million people were slaughtered or starved to death; both as a result of an internal civil war, and a later siege and assault by the Roman armies. Yet there is barely a direct mention of the magnitude of destruction and death in the New Testament, with the exception of these passages in Luke:

"And when [Jesus] was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation." (Luke 19:41-44 KJV)

"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh." (Luke 21:20 KJV)

Jesus said the destruction would occur in the generation of his disciples, which is exactly when it occurred:

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." (Luke 21:32 KJV)

The purpose of this series of posts is to show how there was a substantial and fairly detailed reference in the Revelation of Jesus Christ to the destruction of Jerusalem under the pseudo-name of Babylon the Great. In Part I we discussed how Babylon the Great and old Jerusalem were both responsible for the same blood: in particular the blood of the prophets. We now look at the similarities of whoredom by both cities.

Whatever the sins of Sodom, the sins of Jerusalem were worse, according to Ezekiel. He begins with a general statement of why God adopted the Israelites as his children:

"Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations, And say, Thus saith the Lord God unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite. And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed in water to supple thee; thou wast not salted at all, nor swaddled at all. None eye pitied thee, to do any of these unto thee, to have compassion upon thee; but thou wast cast out in the open field, to the lothing of thy person, in the day that thou wast born. And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live; yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live. I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare." (Eze 16:2-7 KJV)

"I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers' skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk. I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck. And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head. Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom." (Eze 16:10-13 KJV)

"And the woman [Babylon the Great] was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication . . . And saying, Alas, alas that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls! (Rev 17:3-4, 18:16 KJV)

Both Babylon the Great and Jerusalem were called the great city in the Revelation. This is Jerusalem:

"And their dead bodies [of 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)

Note that Jerusalem is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt. The Jerusalem-Sodom comparison is referenced in the prophets, and will be discussed below. But the Egypt comparison is not so clear. We know that the children of Israel were in bondage in Egypt; but how does that relate to Jerusalem? Paul explains it here:

"Which things are an allegory: 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)

We never think much about the children of Israel being in bondage in the days of Christ; but Christ indicated they were in bondage in part of his mission statement:

"The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;" (Isa 61:1 KJV)

Now on to the Sodom comparison: first, we should note that Jerusalem rebelled against God and played the harlot:

"And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord God. 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 16:14-17 KJV)

"And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth. " (Rev 17:5 KJV)

But Ezekiel implied that Jerusalem was also a mother of harlots, and her sins were worse than Sodom's!

"And thine elder sister is Samaria, she and her daughters that dwell at thy left hand: and thy younger sister, that dwelleth at thy right hand, is Sodom and her daughters. Yet hast thou not walked after their ways, nor done after their abominations: but, as if that were a very little thing, thou wast corrupted more than they in all thy ways. 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. " (Eze 16:46-48 KJV)

"How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers." (Isa 1:21 KJV)

Here Isaiah claims Jerusalem is like Sodom and Gomorrah; and only by the grace of God were any saved. Isaiah then instructs the rulers of Jerusalem as if the city really is Sodom or Gomorrah:

"Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah. Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah." (Isa 1:9-10 KJV)

Paul quotes verse 9 in this passage where he explains the destiny of the children of Israel:

"Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: For [Jesus] will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha. " (Rom 9:27-29 KJV)

In the judgement against Jerusalem and her daughters, Ezekiel prophecies that Jerusalem will not return to its former estate, until Sodom is restored. That is unlikely. Does anyone even know where Sodom was located?

"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)

In the matter of judgement, both Jerusalem and Babylon the Great were made desolate. This is Babylon:

“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.” (Jer 7:34)

Compare the last verse with this one in the Revelation referencing Babylon the Great:

“And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee ... 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:” (Rev 18:23-24)

In summary, we have already seen in Part I the similarities in blood vengeance on Jerusalem and Babylon the Great: and now we see that both are called the great city; both are mothers of harlots; both are made desolate; and neither shall ever hear the voice of the bridegroom and the bride, again.

I must conclude that the destruction of Babylon the Great in the Revelation is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

>>>John says the heads are both mountains and kings. As far as the alleged distinction between mountains and hills goes, there's not a specific designation to separate "mountain" and "hill" in Greek or Hebrew: The Greek word oros and the Hebrew word har can mean either. <<<

Sorta. In the New Testament the word "hills" is only used once (Luke 23:30,) and the word "mountains" is found in the same verse. The Greek word for hills is boo-nos; but the Greek word for mountains is or-os, which is the same Greek word used in all seven instances of "mountain(s)" in the Revelation.

But I don't believe that has anything to do with the matter at hand. The mountains appear to be a symbolic designation for a nation that supports the great city.

>>>But even if we ignore John's statement that this city rests on seven hills, the fact is that Jerusalem hasn't sat atop, in a dominant position, over the nations around her since a very brief time in the days of Solomon.<<<

That depends on who you read or talk to. That is, it depends on your translation of, say, "reigneth over the kings of the earth" (e.g., rulers of the land,) or your understanding of the influence the Jews had over all nations. They were Jews scattered in "all" nations of the time, and they had influence.

>>>Just to take a guess, it means that the city in question must rule over the kings of the earth--which is to say, over an empire made up of subjugated kingdoms. You know, exactly what the text says.<<<

The text doesn't say that: the translations do. It is all subjective! One thing is certain, Jesus and the apostles barely mentioned Rome. Why should they? Rome was a pagan nation with no ties to the God's covenant. Jerusalem was the covenant nation that God divorced and passed judgement upon. There are these undeniable similarities:

1. Jerusalem was responsible for the blood of all the prophets, as was Babylon the Great.
2. Jerusalem was a mother of harlots, as was Babylon the Great.
3. Jerusalem was called the great city in the Revelation, as was Babylon the Great.
4. Jerusalem was made desolate, as was Babylon the Great.

>>>This very obvious reading is verified by the city's initial domination over the Beast, symbolic of the Roman Empire, which had absorbed and superceded (per its description in ch 13) the Greeks, the Babylonians, and the Persians. It's also verified by its name: It is compared to Babylon, one-time capital of the known world, just as Rome was the capital of the known world in John's time.<<<

I don't see that at all. Where does the city dominate the Beast? In fact, it was the beast who had power over the nations:

"And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months … And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Rev 13:5, 7-8 KJV)

That describes Nero, who ruled over "all the world" at the time, and who murdered and persecuted the early Christians for forty-two months.

>>>By naming it Babylon, God is also setting it in opposition to Jerusalem: Just as Babylon was responsible for destroying the temple and the city and exiling the Jewish people. Therefore, Mystery Babylon would be the city on seven hills who ruled over the kings of the earth in John's time, and who was responsible for destroying the temple and the city of Jerusalem, and for sending the Jews again into exile.<<<

Was Rome responsible for the blood of the prophets? The old testament prophesies, on a routine basis, compared Jerusalem to the "sin cities," such as Sodom and Gomorrah. By using OT imagery, John was comparing Jerusalem of his day with Babylon of old. It is really that simple. Rome was not even in the picture, except for carrying out God's vengeance on Jerusalem for the murder of his prophets and his beloved Son.

>>>And just as Babylon was eventually cast down in retaliation for the destruction of Jerusalem, so John tells us would Rome be.<<<

So, Jerusalem was collateral damage? LOL! I cannot understand why you cannot understand.

>>>Which brings us back to the obvious candidate which was universally understood to be Mystery Babylon until recently: Rome.<<<

Not a chance. Rome was not responsible for the death of a single prophet: not one. And we have been fresh out of prophets for about 2000 years.

>>>So why are those who sail by sea so upset by the destruction of a landlocked city? How did Jerusalem enrich all who trade by sea? Heck, how could they see the smoke of her burning?<<<

Read the text. You are the one pretending to be the literalist. Read Josephus if you are not satisfied with the text!

>>>That's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand<<<

No it is not. You are the one insisting on a literal interpretation of the text (e.g., "reigneth over the kings of the earth;") except with it is inconvenient. You cannot have it both ways.

>>>and I see no reason to go down that rabbit trail. If you want to debate futurism vs. preterism in general another time, I may be game.<<<

You mean like ignoring the blood of the prophets and saints; or like ignoring the harlotry of Jerusalem that is splattered all over the old testament prophecies?

But thanks for mentioning "rabbit hole." Futurism is nothing but a rabbit hole, because it can mean anything. How many so-called "Antichrists" have there been over the centuries? How many more futurist false prophets and teachers do we have to endure?

>>>Does your Bible's version of Ezekiel stop at chapter 16? Curious. Mine goes right up to chapter 48.<<<

I'll bite. What does it say about the land distributions in Ezekiel 48? How do you explain a future land distribution to the tribe of Dan?

>>>So you're saying that if you find two common points, you can ignore all of the contrary data? Interesting hermeneutic.<<<

Common points? The breaking of the covenant by Israel, and blood vengeance for the murder of the prophets, was the entire reason for the destruction. Talk about an interesting hermeneutic?

>>>But sure, I'll answer your question if you'll answer this: How was Jerusalem responsible for the blood of the righteous Abel?<<<

Jesus explained it. But why would you believe him on that prophecy, when you won't believe him on any of these prophecies?

"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Mat 16:27-28 KJV)

"[Jesus said,] But when they persecute you [my disciples] in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." (Mat 10:23 KJV)

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." (Luke 21:32 KJV)

"For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22 KJV)

Philip

Sorta. . . But I don't believe that has anything to do with the matter at hand. The mountains appear to be a symbolic designation for a nation that supports the great city.

Wheras I believe that John is very specific in stating that the heads symbolize two things, not just one. Otherwise, the reference to "mountains" is superfluous, and I don't believe that there is anything superfluous in the Bible.

They were Jews scattered in "all" nations of the time, and they had influence.

"Having influence" and "ruling" are in two completely different categories, so you're either really overreaching to substantiate your thesis, or you have a "Protocols" view of the ancient world.

It is all subjective!

So why are you bothering writing this, since it involves an objective truth claim?

Why should they? Rome was a pagan nation with no ties to the God's covenant.

Exactly like Babylon. Oh, wait . . .

There are these undeniable similarities:

1. Applies equally to Rome, e.g., Paul, possibly Peter, countless others.
2. Could as easily apply to Rome, depending on your perspective of the scope of the prophecy.
3. While there is a refernce to "the great city," it does not specify that the city in question is Jerusalem. It could easily refer to Mystery Babylon, aka Rome. You're just assuming.
4. As was Rome for a time in the early middle ages (at least to the extent that old Babylon was in John's day). And for those of us who subscribe to a futurist interpretation, as it will be again in an ultimate sense.

Where does the city dominate the Beast?

The woman "rides" the Beast, putting her in the dominant position just like a man who rides a horse.

That describes Nero, who ruled over "all the world" at the time, and who murdered and persecuted the early Christians for forty-two months.

Except for the minor detail that Nero had been dead for some thirty years by the time Revelation was penned. Also, Nero's persecution of the Christians began after the Great Fire in 64 CE and ended with his death almost four years later, so that would be 47 months, not 42.

Also, Nero didn't make a return from the dead. Nor was he cast alive into Gehenna; he committed (assisted) suicide. Nor did his death bring the Church into a new golden age in which it ruled with the Lamb--things actually went downhill over the next two centuries. Nor did the dead rise. Nor . . . look, anyone reasonable gets the point.

Was Rome responsible for the blood of the prophets?

Didn't you just say it was, under Nero? Does Paul count as a prophet in your view?

So, Jerusalem was collateral damage?

No. Jerusalem received the full measure of God's wrath against her, as spoken of by the prophets. But just as her previous destruction was at the hands of the capital of the known world six hundred years previously, so was her destruction in 70 and 135 CE. But remember that even though they were the instruments of His judgment against Israel, God in turn judged Ninevah and Babylon with invasion, siege, slavery, and desolation just as He had Jerusalem. Since God does not change, why should we be surprised that He would do the same against Rome?

And that's my real problem with preterism: It gives us an inconsistant God who cannot be counted on to keep His promises as given or to continue to act the same today as He did yesterday.

Rome was not responsible for the death of a single prophet: not one.

I disagree, as would anyone who actually read up on Church history before the Council of Nicea--and given the compromise with the state that happened there, even after.

Read the text.

I did. I'm still waiting for you to tell me why everyone who makes their living at sea was mourning the loss of a landlocked city of zero economic importance.

No it is not.

It really is. I'm not interested in roaming all over the eschatological map with you right now and think we can keep this conversation focused on a single issue.

You mean like ignoring the blood of the prophets and saints; or like ignoring the harlotry of Jerusalem that is splattered all over the old testament prophecies?

I'm not ignoring that at all, though I will ignore your attempt at guilt by association for now. I've simply pointed out why when you take the whole passage in context, there are too many places where it makes no sense to take Jerusalem as Mystery Babylon. If you have two links, but as many or more conflicts, then all must be taken into account.

Jerusalem:
- Is landlocked and not on any major trading route.
- Is a burdensome stone for all the peoples (Zec. 12:3) who claim their moral innocence when they willingly destroy her (Jer. 50:7).
- Was ruined for her sins against God (Isa. 3, Mic. 3:12), but will be washed clean of her blood-guilt and made holy unto Yhvh (Isa. 4:3-4, Joel 3:17, Zec. 14:21).
- Is pardoned for her sins after she receives double back for them (Isa. 40:2).
- God takes vengeance against Babylon and the nations for the destruction of Jerusalem, even though Jerusalem was destroyed for her own sin (Psa. 137:8, Jer. 51:35-36, Zec. 1:18-21).
- In the Day of the Lord, there will be deliverance in Mt. Zion and Jerusalem (Joel 2:31-32), for God will roar forth from Jerusalem against the nations that come against her (Joel 3:16; Zec. 9:13-15, 12:8-9; 14:2).
- Is the place where the Lord will set His throne (Isa. 24:23, Jer. 3:17, Luke 1:32-33), and the Gentiles will gather to her to learn the Torah (Mic. 4:2, Zec. 8:22-23) and to keep the Feast of Sukkot (Zec. 14:16).
- Will no more be called forsaken or desolate, but will be called a Delight and Married (Isa. 62:4, Zec. 14:11).
- The sound of weeping will no longer be heard in her (Isa. 65:19).

Mystery Babylon:
- Is a city accessible from the sea (Rev. 18:17) and her destruction disrupts the whole world’s economy (v. 11).
- Is beloved by the kings of the earth, who mourn for her passing (Rev. 18:9-10).
- Will be destroyed by God like Sodom and Gomorrah, never to be rebuilt (Isa. 13:19, Jer. 50:40, Rev. 18:21).
Receives back double for her sins, but is not pardoned (Rev. 18:6).
- God takes vengeance against Babylon and the nations for the destruction of Jerusalem, even though Jerusalem was destroyed for her own sin (Psa. 137:8, Jer. 51:35-36, Zec. 1:18-21).
- Is utterly destroyed during the Day of the Lord (Isa. 13:9, Rev. 16:19).
Will be inhabited by demons and wild beasts (Rev. 18:2).
- God calls His people out of her (Rev. 18:4), for she will never be inhabited by man again (Isa. 13:20, Jer. 50:40).
- The sound of music, craftsmen, millstones, etc. will never be heard in her again (Rev. 18:22).

Rome matches the allusion to Babylon (the instrument of God's judgment against Israel), the importance to the world's economy described in the prophecy, accessibilty by ships of the sea, ruling over the Beast that represents the Roman Empire, ruling over the kings of the earth, etc. By the time Revelation was penned in 90-96 CE (when John was exiled to Patmos by Domitian), Rome was also guilty of the blood of the prophets and the saints--and would continue to be drunk on the blood of the true saints for centuries to come.

So what about calling MB a harlot? The funny thing is, the Bible only ascribes the title of Harlot to a city that has known the truth but then apostasized from it for the sake of worldly power: Jerusalem, of course. But also Tyre, who after helping to build Solomon's Temple, turned on Israel to secure her own importance (Eze. 27-28). Likewise Ninevah is called a harlot, but only by Nahum, after she had repented at the preaching of Jonah but then went back to her old ways.

So what about Rome? A city which would become the capital of Western Christianity for a thousand years, and yet would spill the blood of countless saints in the name of purging heresy. A city in which Church became intermingled with the state, leading to horrendous abuses, including literal harlotry with the priests.

Yes, from a futurist--or historicist, for that matter--perspective, calling Rome both a harlot and a mother of harlots (her "daughters" being what we call Western Civilization) makes perfect sense, as does the charge of spilling the blood of both prophets and saints. Rome and all her daughters knew the truth--and sacrificed Truth on the altar of worldly wealth and power.

What does it say about the land distributions in Ezekiel 48? How do you explain a future land distribution to the tribe of Dan?

I fail to see why the latter is even a problem: There are Danites in Ethiopia today. On the former, either you have to abandon preterism, or you're the one with a problem.

(On Abel) Jesus explained it.

So now you explain it. How did Jerusalem kill Abel?

In regards to the prophecies you cite, I'll again point out that you're going way off topic and into a general attack on futurism rather than proving your own point. But just to give quick answers:

Mat 16:27-28 - And six days later, Peter, Jacob (James), and John saw Yeshua glorfied as He would be after the Resurrection. (The location of the Transfiguration is important to understanding this, but I don't have time to go into all that right now.) Less than a year later, they saw the coming of the Spirit to bind the 120 to the Kingdom. And sixty years later, John saw a vision of the Second Coming in the Revelation.

Mat 10:23 - Being that this discourse was apparently repeated at the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13), I would argue that it is a classic example of a near/far prophecy: Near term, the disciples would not run out of places to announce the Gospel before Yeshua (Jesus, if you prefer) came to Jerusalem in His 1st Coming. Far term, they would not run out of places to flee before He returned to resurrect them in His Second Coming.

Luke 21:32 - "This Generation" can also mean "this people," and I would argue that the latter is its primary meaning. If not, you have a problem, since the final destruction of the city was not accomplished until 135 CE, over a hundred years later.

Luke 21:22 - "That all things which are written may be fulfilled," not "Fulfilling all the things which are written." Yeshua used similar phrases to speak of His crucifixion, yet even the most rigid preterist correctly understands that there were prophecies yet to be fulfilled after that point.

Now, how about staying focused?

>>>Isaiah 2:3 And many people shall go and say , Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord , to the house of the God of Jacob ; and he will teach us of his ways , and we will walk in his paths : for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.<<<

That passage is referring to heavenly New Jerusalem located on heavenly mount Sion. New Jerusalem is also known as the Church. The New Testament mentions them in several places:

"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)

Note the present tense of the previous passage. Recall that John witnessed the new holy city while he was in the spirit:

"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)

There is no need for a temple, since the temple of God is within us:

"And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it." (Rev 21:22 KJV)

"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." (Eph 2:19-22 KJV)

People who "go up to the mountain of the Lord" do so spiritually, as in, being saved by calling on the name of the Lord, and learning his "law" through his Word:

"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)

To distinguish heavenly Jerusalem from earthly Jerusalem, Paul wrote:

"Which things are an allegory: 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)

The fact that earthly Jerusalem is represented by bondage explains the second spiritual reference in the Revelation to Jerusalem as "Egypt" (Rev 11:8.) The first reference was Sodom, the theme of this thread.

>>>Rev 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.<<<

There has been a lot of discussion on that verse on this thread. I personally believe it was referring to the local rulers of the land of Israel, which the leaders of Jerusalem were most definitely superior to. My belief is derived from the theme of all the new testament writers who were focused primarily on the upcoming judgement of Israel; God's divorcement of the nation; and the Lord's mission to gather the lost sheep of the house of Israel before that judgement and divorcement (Mat 15:24, 10:6.)

Some believe it related to the influence that Jerusalem had over other lands due to Jewish presence in those lands. Others insist that verse must be taken "literally" to be the type of kings that we are familiar with today.

But no one really knows what that verse means, that I am aware of. About all that verse does is provide a good "gotcha" so the primary themes of the threads can be avoided. If you read all the posts on the two threads of this subject, you will notice an almost complete lack of discussion of the main themes: the blood of the prophets (part I,) and harlotry (part II.) Those themes are almost impossible to dispute in any rational way, so futurists typically avoid them.

Philip

That theory just doesn’t make any sense, as he is using Josephus as a primary source, but then ignoring Josephus’ description of the relative areas of the Temple and Fort Antonia.

As you can see in his drawings, his “Antonia” is at least three times as large as the Temple, while Josephus does not agree with this. Josephus puts the perimeter of the Temple complex alone at 4 furlongs around, and when Antonia was included, the entire complex was still only 6 furlongs around. If we measured the total perimeter of this author’s proposed complex, it would have to be much larger than 6 furlongs to account for his ridiculously enlarged “Antonia”.

Now, Josephus also says Antonia was directly adjacent to the Temple, not separated by a collonade as long as the Temple, which this theorist must do in order to reach a different hill to place the Temple on. Knowing this, you can use a little basic geometry and algebra to calculate the maximum area Antonia could occupy.

The combined perimeter is 6 furlongs, but we know that 3 of those furlongs are accounted for by the west, south, and east walls of the Temple complex. That leaves 3 furlongs for the north, west, and east walls of Antonia, and whatever part of the northern temple wall projected beyond Antonia. The maximum area that Antonia could possibly have occupied would be if Antonia was a square, as any rectangle with the same perimeter would enclose a smaller area.

If Antonia’s south wall did not extend across the entire north wall of the Temple, then it also would occupy a smaller area, so to calculate the maximum area, we must assume that it stretched all the way across. That leaves 3 walls, and 3 furlongs, and the walls must be equal if the area was a square, so the maximum area is 1 square furlong, the same as the area Josephus gives for the Temple complex.

Now, that is the maximum possible area, but Josephus tells us specifically that Antonia was located where the northern and western walls of the Temple complex met. If Antonia stretched all the way across the northern wall, then that description would not be sensible. So we must assume that it did not span the entire length of the Temple wall, and this would mean that the area of Antonia must have been smaller, not larger than the Temple Complex.

>>>Wheras I believe that John is very specific in stating that the heads symbolize two things, not just one. Otherwise, the reference to "mountains" is superfluous, and I don't believe that there is anything superfluous in the Bible.<<<

Who said anything about being "superfluous." I am certain the target audience: the early Christians of the seven churches in Asia, did not believe they were superfluous. But, in our case, many centuries distant from the scene of the crime, we can only speculate and theorize due to the lack of explanatory scriptural references.

>>>"Having influence" and "ruling" are in two completely different categories, so you're either really overreaching to substantiate your thesis, or you have a "Protocols" view of the ancient world.<<

I have no idea what "protocols" view means? Care to explain?

>>>So why are you bothering writing this, since it involves an objective truth claim?<<<

Some parts are not subjective: those parts where you seem to avoid any serious debate. The two main "themes" of my threads feel "slighted" and "rejected."

>>>Exactly like Babylon. Oh, wait . . .<<<

Nice try at redirection; but there has been no "Babylon" since it turned to dust in ancient times. There was, however, a massive Roman Empire which got virtually no ink in the entire New Testament, even though it ruled the world. Even in the Revelation, only the vicious, lunatic tyrant, Nero, got any serious ink.

>>>1. Applies equally to Rome, e.g., Paul, possibly Peter, countless others.<<<

How is the murder of Paul considered the blood of the prophets? Where is it even mentioned that Paul was murdered in Rome? Who were the countless other prophets? I am very curious to see that list, even a small one.

Admit it. You are spiritualizing the scriptures.

>>>2. Could as easily apply to Rome, depending on your perspective of the scope of the prophecy.<<<

How could Rome be considered the mother of Harlots by the Lord? Would there not be some sort of definitive prophecy explaining it, like there is with Jerusalem?

>>>3. While there is a refernce to "the great city," it does not specify that the city in question is Jerusalem. It could easily refer to Mystery Babylon, aka Rome. You're just assuming.<<<

I think I understand you: you believe our Lord was killed in Rome. That is a new one, even for a "futurist."

>>>4. As was Rome for a time in the early middle ages (at least to the extent that old Babylon was in John's day). And for those of us who subscribe to a futurist interpretation, as it will be again in an ultimate sense.<<<

Now you really have my interest. When was Rome made desolate in a very short time? It mentions an "hour" in the Revelation.

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.