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is verified by the city's initial domination over the Beast, symbolic of the Roman Empire, which had absorbed and superceded (per its description in ch 13) the Greeks, the Babylonians, and the Persians.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
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?