Posted on 04/09/2014 9:44:02 AM PDT by PhilipFreneau
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)
And the Lord turned Jerusalem into a prosperous and beautiful kingdom:
"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)
Babylon the Great was similarly adorned:
"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)
In comparison, Babylon the Great was called the Mother of Harlots:
"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)
This was Isaiah regarding Judah and Jerusalem:
"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:
“… for in one hour is she made desolate.” (Rev 18:19)
This is 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.” (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.
Philip
>>>What is incomprehensible about Jesus’ parameters being set and Agabus not being inside those parameters?<<<
All you have to do is prove your points with scripture. I am not going to take your word for something that makes no sense to me.
Philip
BTW, I accidentally posted the previous response twice.
On call tonight...will get back with you later
Jesus clearly defines from Abel to Zechariah.
Acts 21: 10 And we remaining many more days, there came down a certain one from Judea, a prophet, by name Agabus, 11 and he having come unto us, and having taken up the girdle of Paul, having bound also his own hands and feet, said, `Thus saith the Holy Spirit, The man whose is this girdle -- so shall the Jews in Jerusalem bind, and they shall deliver [him] up to the hands of nations.'
Agabus is clearly called a prophet, and he is NOT in time between Abel and Zechariah.
Amen To his days are Numbered. Peace in Christ!
That is a very obscure passage, and one on which commentators are continually debating. I have drawn no conclusions; but this commentary may be on the right track:
"It seems established by the clearest evidence that at the death of Nero there was a popular and wide-spread belief that the tyrant was still alive, and would shortly reappear. We have the express testimony of Tacitus, Suetonius, and other historians to the existence of such a persuasion." [James Stuart Russell, The Parousia, pp.498-499]
That would help explain the really strange description, "… was, and is not, and yet is." (Rev 17:8.)
>>>and also the ten kings who did not have any kingdoms at that time and gives their power to the beast to destroy the whore?<<<
The ten horns were most likely either ten provincial governors or ten legion commanders. Josephus and Tacitus also referred to several kings from neighboring nations that joined their armies with the Roman armies. Whoever the ten "kings" were, they hated the Jews, and destroyed (or helped destroy) Jerusalem, as well as the Jews in many outliers, such as in Alexandria and in Syria.
Philip
In other words, this is all hypothetical.
He also "defined" others that He or God would be sending in he near future:
"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" (Mat 23:34 KJV)
"Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute" (Luke 11:49 KJV)
When Jesus said the current generation was responsible for the blood of those murdered by their fathers, you don't think He was going to let them off the hook for their own future murders, do you? In fact, their own blood-thirstiness was the reason they were held responsible in the first place. What do you think Jesus meant when he said, "fill ye up then the measure of your fathers"?
"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)
Was Jesus not telling them that they would prove to be just as blood-thirsty as their fathers? Or, as Matthew Henry wrote,
"Children fill up the measure of their fathers' sins when they are gone, if they persist in the same or the like." [Commentary on the Whole Bible, Vol V, Matt 23:32]
>>>Agabus is clearly called a prophet, and he is NOT in time between Abel and Zechariah.<<<
If he was murdered (and there is absolutely no record of that happening) he would have been sent by Jesus; and Jesus said the Jews would only slay some, not all. If he was murdered, his blood was avenged on Jerusalem.
Philip
Except that Jesus clearly states “from Abel...to Zechariah”.
He says it. Not me. He has his reasons for it. We can try to find all kinds of ways around it, but it IS what he said.
>>>In other words, this is all hypothetical.<<<
Of course. There are many historical events that can be deciphered from the text; but some will continue to be obscure. After all, John was not writing to us; but to the seven churches in Asia at that time.
One thing is certain: the destruction of the great city was referring to destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD; and has nothing to do with modern events.
Philip
It’s not clear that the destruction of Mystery Babylon has to do with the destruction of Jerusalem.
That is purely hypothetical. You must acknowledge that many disagree with you, so it can’t be “certain”.
I'm equally sure he meant all the other things he said (eg, today's Jews aren't true Israelites, etc.).
>>>Except that Jesus clearly states “from Abel...to Zechariah”. He says it. Not me. He has his reasons for it. We can try to find all kinds of ways around it, but it IS what he said.<<<
So, he gave them a license to kill? Is that what you are implying? Or are you implying that someone else would be held accountable for their murders of the prophets and apostles that Jesus would be sending? Help me out here.
Also, when you get time, what does “Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers” mean to you?
Philip
I think He meant what He said. He said "this generation" responsible from this point to that point. From point A to point B.
That's what He said. He didn't say "from point A to point B to other future points to be named in a future draft."
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Wailing+wall&qpvt=Wailing+wall&FORM=IGRE
These stones were sitting atop each other when Christ gave His warning. Christ said “..... There shall NOT be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be ‘thrown’ down.”
It means they're as bad as their forefathers.
It is crystal clear. I believe, however, that I can empathize with your position. Once one has "written in stone" such irreconcilable interpretations as, "this generation" means a generation far in the future, and when Jesus told his servants to "watch," he meant for them to watch from their graves for 2000 years, the resulting "slippery slope" requires continuous irreconcilable interpretations.
>>> You must acknowledge that many disagree with you, so it can’t be “certain”.<<<
Let's look at your notion that something cannot be certain if many disagree. Many disagree that Jesus is the Christ. In fact, billions disagree. Therefore, how can you be certain Jesus is the Christ?
I don't have any of the problems you are confronted with in interpreting the scriptures. For example, take the passage we are debating about the "blood of the prophets." A plain reading of that passage alone, when compared to similar verses in the Revelation, is all I need to be absolutely certain that Babylon the Great in the Revelation was Jerusalem. Everything else I examine is solely an attempt to try to understand the "coded message" that Jesus was sending to the seven churches in Asia.
Philip
What is your point? Was Babylon The Great a Symbolic Name for Jerusalem? Part II: Mother of Harlots and Sins of Sodom.
This is your title in the form of a question. What does Babylon the word and name mean? The meaning of Babylon is confusion which in large part answers the question "Was Babylon the Great a Symbolic Name for Jerusalem?" IF God is not there then there is confusion, or if there is confusion God is not in it or there. And that is not limited to the city of Jerusalem it applies to any and all.
Since the claim of the 'complete destruction' in 70 A.D. is incorrect what else is incorrect about these claims.
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)
It is misleading at best to attribute this verse as speaking to the time/days of when His disciples walked this earth. Because the prophecy was given in the 'parable of the fig tree' Luke 21:32.
Matthew 24:32 Now lean a parable of the fig tree; WHEN his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is night:
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
Verily I say unto you, THIS generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
The disciples were NOT on this earth when the parable of the fig tree was planted and thus the 'destruction' of the city/temple did not occur in 70 A.D. because all manner of stones still sit atop one another.
Yes, but you and I are both talking about the same scriptures. They are not arguing the non-existence or non-divinity of Jesus from the scriptures.
We’re talking about eschatology, and it is a difficult subject, and it’s been subject to a host of different viewpoints for thousands of years.
So, for you to say your interpretation is “certain” is a bit over the top.
Beyond that, I don’t think you understand my position on “this generation.” When Jesus uttered those words in Matthew 24 were they still future at the time he spoke them?
>>>These stones were sitting atop each other when Christ gave His warning. Christ said “..... There shall NOT be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be ‘thrown’ down.”<<<
The Wailing Wall was most likely not a part of the temple complex, which was the context of the scripture. Have you read my post #75? It links to three websites that use the words of Josephus to determine the location of the temple and Fort Anatonia, which leads them to conclude that the Wailing Wall was part of the Fort, or part of the city walls.
Anyway, there is some very good information on those sites.
Philip
>>>I think He meant what He said. He said “this generation” responsible from this point to that point. From point A to point B.<<<
I am very thankful I don’t have contort the scriptures that way.
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.