Jerusalem, the great city, the holy city, was utterly destroyed. 1.2 million Jewish people lost their lives in the conflagration. Jerusalem was burned, and when the Romans were finished, not one stone was left on another. Jesus had warned of this day in the Mt. Olivet discourses (Mark 13, Matthew 24, Luke 21) and had wept over Jerusalem: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate (Matt 23:37-38).
He's not just talking about the Book of Revelation.
That’s an entirely different paragraph, and not the one I am taking issue with. This is the problematic one:
“Consider a similar passage from the Book of Revelation (Chapter 18) warning the faithful about Babylon. (By 90 AD Babylon was actually long gone. Thus Babylon here is a symbol for the world and its tendency to fall into corruption.) John was saying that the Great City (Jerusalem the great city which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified Rev 11:8) had become Babylon. And he develops this theme in Revelation 18. Sadly, by 70 AD, having been given 40 years to repent, Jerusalem was sacked, burned, and utterly destroyed just as this prophecy had warned.”
He says “as this prophecy had warned”. Well, what prophecy? He only refers to two passages from the Bible in this paragraph (Rev. Chapter 18, and Rev. 11:8), so the prophecy he means is one of those, and because he refers to a warning, it surely is Rev 18, as that contains this warning:
“4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.”
When this was written, Jerusalem had already been destroyed in 70 AD. So this prophecy is not equivalent to the Olivet discourse, it must refer to future events.