# Mystery Babylon=Rome or Jerusalem?



## shackleton

I have just read J Stewart Russell's book "The Parousia" and find the evidence, at least that Revelation pertains to the judgment of the Jews and Jerusalem, very compelling. The writings of Josephus seem to back it up, it is almost like Josephus was spared just to show how all the events prophesied in the Olivet Discourse and Revelation were fulfilled up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem. The problem is the majority of scholars today say it has a late date and pertains to Rome an 

The problem I have with this is that they seem to take all of the first century meaning out of the prophesies made by Jesus and by doing this everything becomes "spiritualized." It is like they are allegorizing bible prophecy and a late date for Revelation helps takes away the meaning it has in pertaining to Jerusalem and can therefore be made to say anything. 

Any thoughts? I know Russell was a full-preterist I am not pushing for this, just for the true hermeneutical interpretation of scripture especially in light of what history tells us. Basically wondering why so many scholars can just dismiss the evidence in Josephus and early Roman historians?

( I was going to make this a poll but did not know how)


----------



## holyfool33

When I was a Postmil Preterist I held that the Antichrist was Nero and Mystery Babylon was Apostate Jerusalem. Be careful reading Russel though he is a full preterist. O fcourse my views have now changed seeing that I now hold a futriest view in that the Antichrist will rise up out of Europe after the raspture of the church to persicute the jewish remnent during the seven year tribulation.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

Mystery Babylon following careful exegesis is Jerusalem with the unbelieving reprobate pharisees, herods, and other zealots.


----------



## ReformedWretch

anton bruckner said:


> mystery babylon following careful exegesis is jerusalem with the unbelieving reprobate pharisees, herods, and other zealots.



yep!


----------



## holyfool33

Anton Bruckner said:


> Mystery Babylon following careful exegesis is Jerusalem with the unbelieving reprobate pharisees, herods, and other zealots.



How exactly would one exegete the passage to come to that answer or interpretation? One could say your reading your own presuppositions into scripture how would you answer this question? Of course I get accused of reading my presuppositions into scripture all the time but everyone has presuppositions a Calvinist Will read Scriptures Calvinistic and a follower of Arminius will read them as an Arminian will read them. Also and this is the thing that had me give up Preterist interpretations the use of Josephus and secular history can a person really using only scripture come to this interpretation without resorting to Josephus?


----------



## ReformedWretch

> Israel and the Church: the Differences
> You are here: Home > Essays > Israel and the Church: the Differences
> by Thomas S. McCall, Th.D.
> Dr. Thomas McCall, the Senior Theologian of our ministry, has written many articles for the Levitt Letter. He holds a Th.M. in Old Testament studies and a Th.D. in Semitic languages and Old Testament. He has served as Zola’s co-author, mentor, pastor, and friend for nearly 30 years.
> 
> This article appeared orignally in the May 1996 Levitt Letter.
> 
> 
> The Church is Israel
> Israel & Church Different
> Church Decided Demise of Israel?
> Israel’s Future Demeans Church’s Glory?
> 
> Introduction
> One of the great theological battlegrounds of orthodox Christianity throughout the centuries has been the nature and character of the Church, especially in relation to its biblical predecessor, Israel. The two major views are that:
> 
> The Church is a continuation of Israel
> The Church is completely different from Israel
> 
> First View: The Church is Israel
> The predominant view has been that the Church is the “new” Israel, a continuation of the concept of Israel which began in the Old Testament. In this view, the Church is the refinement and higher development of the concept of Israel. All of the promises made to Israel in the Scriptures find their fulfillment in the Church. Thus, the prophecies relating to the blessing and restoration of Israel to the Promised Land are “spiritualized” into promises of blessing to the Church. The prophecies of condemnation and judgment, though, are retained literally by the Jewish nation of Israel.
> 
> This view is sometimes called Replacement Theology, because the Church is seen to replace Israel in God’s economy. One of the problems with the view, among others, is the continuing existence of the Jewish people, especially with regard to the revival of the new modern state of Israel. If Israel has been condemned to extinction, and there is no divinely ordained future for the Jewish nation, how does one account for the supernatural survival of the Jewish people since the establishment of the Church, for almost 2,000 years against all odds? Furthermore, how does one account for Israel’s resurgence among the family of nations as an independent nation, victorious in several wars and flourishing economically?



Ok, first of all the author begins by stating that the first view says the “Church is the continuation on the concept of Israel.” This is a pretty good explanation of this view! But then in the second paragraph he changes his mind and states “this view is sometimes called Replacement Theology, because the Church is seen to replace Israel in God’s economy.” Now which is it? They believe that the “Church is the continuation on the concept of Israel” or that “the Church is seen to replace Israel in God’s economy”? 

Now let’s look at the brief argument used to dispel the belief that the Church is the continuation of Israel (or replacement if you are trying to slander such belief). The argument says that because the Jewish Nation and people exist then the view that the Church is the continuation of Israel cannot be true? That because they have over come great odds and flourished, those who view the church being a continuation of Israel are wrong.

What kind of argument is this?

I can promise you that the fact that National Israel exists does nothing to the idea that the Church is the continuation of God’s Israel. It does nothing to remove the passages within scripture that tell us.

Ephesians 2
11Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands-- 12remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself *one new man in place of the two*, so making peace, 16and might reconcile us both to God in *one body* through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19So then you are no longer strangers and aliens,[1] but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

This is so obvious! There are now NO LONGER two people’s of God. What more proof do we need? Why are there arguments still going on? This passage tells us that there is now ONE NEW MAN IN PLACE OF TWO it says there is ONE BODY.

Who is the Israel of God?

Galatians 6
16And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

All who walk by this rule! It has nothing to do with Nationality!

Galatians 3
26for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28*There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[1] nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.*

Galatians 3
29And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

The Old Testament tells us of a New Covenant coming!

Jeremiah 31
31"Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah

The new covenant began with the last supper!

Luke 22
20And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

We need to stop stressing Nationality!

Romans 2
28For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29*But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.*

Do you SEE that? A Jew is one inwardly! Ones HEART, not his lineage, determine it! 

God had this plan all along!

Hosea 1
9And the LORD said, "Call his name Not My People,[1] for you are not my people, and I am not your God."[2] 
10[3] Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the place where it was said to them, "You are not my people," it shall be said to them, "Children[4] of the living God."

The hostility that you see on this board in these discussions should be DEAD!

Ephesians 2
11Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands-- 12remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
This passage speaks BOLDLY in regard to ONENESS! 

NOW…..




> Second View: Israel and the Church are Different
> The other view, we believe, is clearly taught in the New Testament, but it has been suppressed throughout most of Church history. This view is that the Church is completely different and distinct from Israel, and the two should not be confused. In fact, the Church is an entirely new creation that came into being on the Day of Pentecost after Christ’s resurrection from the dead, and will continue until it is taken to Heaven at the Rapture return of the Lord (Eph. 1:9-11). None of the curses or blessings pronounced upon Israel refers directly to the Church. The Church enters into the Abrahamic and New Covenants, for instance, only by divine application, not by original interpretation (Matt 26:28).



What?

So the “Church” (We believers today who are not Jewish) were not originally in mind or in the plan” of God under His original covenant?

Really?

Gen 12: 1Now the LORD said[a] to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. 2And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."*

Notice here that God tells Abram that “in you ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTh shall be blessed.” Does this not clearly imply that this covenant will extend around the WORLD and not just to Israel?

Besides, all of God’s promises were fulfilled in Christ!

19For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom we proclaimed among you, Silvanus and Timothy and I, was not Yes and No, but in him it is always Yes. 20For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory. 

Paul tells us that we gentiles are now part of these promises!
12remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.



This leaves all the covenants, promises, and warnings to Israel intact. Israel, the natural Jewish nation, is still Israel. To be sure, Israel has been side-lined during these past 1,900 years of the Diaspora. The Church has taken center stage in the Lord’s affairs as the Gospel has spread throughout the world. Nevertheless, God has carefully preserved the Jewish people, even in unbelief, through every kind of distress and persecution. Sometimes, the professing Church itself (I speak to our shame) has been a cause of these persecutions to the Jews.

Click to expand...


Ok which is it here? God has “supernaturally” blessed National Israel and the Jewish people, or He has “side-lined” them? How can it be both?




Not only has God preserved the Jewish nation, but He has also kept His promise to save a remnant of Israel in every generation. The remnant of Israel in this age are the Jewish believers in Christ who have joined the Gentile believers, and form the Church, the Body of Christ (Rom. 11:5). In this respect, then, a part of Israel (the believing remnant) intersects with the Church during the Church Age. But this does not make Israel the Church, or vice versa.

Click to expand...


Wait….is the “conversion of the Jews CURRENT throughout these ages, or is it a future event? It seems like the author of this article is claiming BOTH? I agree completely that the word of our Lord speaks CLEARLY of a “remnant” of national Jews who will embrace Jesus as Messiah! But this author claims it has been happening and even admits that this remnant intersects (continues maybe?) with the Church! He seems to understand the position of the Church and Israel being one right here, but then quickly asserts that while it is easy to read this into his statement it is not what he believes! More confusion!




In the future, both God’s warnings and promises to Israel will come to pass. After the Lord is finished with the Church Age, and has taken the Church to Heaven in the Rapture (1 Thess. 4:16-18), God will restore Israel to center stage on the world’s divine theater. First comes the devastating “Time of Jacob’s Trouble” (Jer. 30:7) also known as the Great Tribulation. This is a dreadful period of seven years, which begins relatively lightly during the first half, but intensifies into full focus during the latter half. During this time the world is judged for rejecting Christ, but, more specifically, Israel is judged, purged and prepared through the fiery trials of the Great Tribulation for the Second Coming of the Messiah. This is the bad news.

Click to expand...


This is where the “great commission” fails, Satan takes control of the planet, and believers are removed so this can happen. I do not wish to get into a lengthy “end times” debate here, but one can clearly see how believing this way in regard to “end times” FORCES you to believe that God has two peoples when His word strictly says He does not. 





The good news is that, when Christ does return to the earth at the end of the Tribulation, Israel will be ready, willing, and eager to receive Him, and proclaim, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord” (Matt. 23:39). As the stumbling of Israel brought blessing to the world at Christ’s First Coming, the reception of Israel to Christ at His Second Advent will be like “life from the dead” (Rom. 11:15). The remnant of Israel which survives the Tribulation (some one-third of the Jewish people who enter the Tribulation), will be saved, and the Lord will establish His kingdom on the same earth and the same capital city, Jerusalem, that rejected Him centuries before. Israel will be the head of the nations, and no longer the tail, and all nations will send representatives to Jerusalem to honor and worship the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Isa. 2:2-3; Micah 4:1). The Church will return with Christ, and will rule with Him for a thousand years (Rev. 20:1-5). He Himself told His disciples that they would rule over the 12 tribes of Israel in the restoration (Matt. 19:28). Thus, Israel has not been forgotten in God’s plan. While the Jewish nation still has a dark period facing it, there is a glorious finale to Israel’s long history.

Click to expand...


Oh, so there are two plans of redemption? No, instead Christ reigns NOW from Heavenly Jerusalem and does not need to sit on a literal earthly throne in order to rule and reign. He is Lord right now sitting at God’s right hand.




How Did the Church Decide the Demise of Israel?
The New Testament Church was very much involved with the vicissitudes of Israel. Jesus is an Israeli, as were all the apostles, and the concerns of Israel, spiritually and politically, were very much a part of their lives. The greatest struggles the early Church had were over the relationship between Israel and the Church, law and grace, and the fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ (Galatians). Many of the Jewish believers were not comfortable with the Gentile believers at first; and as time went on and Gentiles began to predominate numerically, the attitudes were reversed. Galatians shows how the Jewish party tried to impose the Mosaic Law on Gentile Christians, and Romans shows how the Gentile party began to “boast against the branches” (Rom. 11:18), resenting the place of Israel in history and theology.

It took some time, perhaps a couple of centuries, but eventually the vast Gentile majority in the Church began to view Israel as a vestigial organ that had outlived its usefulness. In fact, the predominant Christian view was that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD signaled the official and divinely-ordained end of the Jewish nation, never more to be re-instituted as a national entity. The fact that Jerusalem lay in ruins and the Jewish people were scattered over the world was seen as conclusive evidence that God was forever finished with national Israel. If there were any purpose for the existence of the Jewish people, it was to remind the world of the severe judgment of God upon a disobedient people.

If this harsh view of Israel were true, though, what of the promises of God to Israel in the Old Testament? For those who claimed to believe in the entire Bible as the Word of God, this was a great problem. How could a faithful God not keep His promises to His ancient people? To deal with this took extraordinary theological dexterity and alchemy. The theologians had to propose that Israel in the Scriptures did not really mean Israel, especially when it came to the promises of eternal blessing. Instead, Israel meant something else, something that came to be known in the New Testament as the Church. The Church became the new Israel, and through this remarkable transformation, wherever blessing is promised to Israel in the Old Testament, it was interpreted to mean the Church. This is Replacement Theology, in which the Church has become Israel.

Replacement Theology was already around before the end of the First Century, but did not become the official position of professing Christian leadership until Augustine popularized the concept, primarily in THE CITY OF GOD, in the latter part of the Fourth Century. Augustine actually states that he was previously a Chiliast, meaning that he was a believer in the thousand-year reign of Christ on the earth after His return. This is the same as our current description of Premillennialism. However, he had come to the conclusion that this view was “carnal,” and had adopted the view that the reign of Christ would be something more “spiritual,” and would actually occur during the Church Age. Such a view necessitated the extinction of Israel, and the cancellation of all promises God made to the Jewish nation. These promises of blessing would now be fulfilled within the framework of the Church.

This view, which had been latent in Christendom, now flourished throughout the Byzantine world. From this point on, the theological legs were cut out from under Israel, and the predominant Christian theology was that there was no future for Israel. Replacement Theology has been the rule that has survived the Middle Ages, the Crusades and the Reformation in Church History. Only during the last Century or so has the Premillennial concept of the future of Israel come to the forefront in evangelical Christianity. Even so, it is a minority view.

Click to expand...


Tired old drivel that is so obvious that it should be shunned by anyone willing to read the bible in context. All Israel are those who profess Christ! Your National origin is meaningless!




Does Israel’s Future Demean the Church’s Glory?
Some suggest that if Israel has not ceased to exist in its covenant relationship to God, and if Israel still has a future in the divine plan, this somehow diminishes the position of the Church. Is such a concern valid? It is almost as though the Church has been jealous of Israel, and afraid that if it recognized Israel’s future promises, it would somehow demean Christ and the Church. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It is when the Church recognizes Israel that the true distinctiveness and glory of the Body of Christ becomes evident. This called-out body, composed of believing Jews and Gentiles during the Church Age, is the highest entity the Lord has created, superior to the universe, all the Angels, the nations, and Israel. Our Head, our Husband, our Friend is the Son of God Himself. We shall reign with Him when He rules the earth, and our 12 Founding Apostles will rule over the 12 tribes of Israel. The Angels themselves will study us forever as the greatest exhibit of God’s grace, and we will actually judge the Angels. This is our destiny, and this writer, for one, would not trade his position in the Body of Christ with any creature in the universe! Why, then, be disturbed over what God has promised the Jewish people? Why be jealous over the future destiny of Israel? How short sighted of us! Indeed, the Church’s finest and most distinctive hour will be when Israel is restored nationally and spiritually to the Lord at the Second Coming of Christ. We will return from Heaven with Him as His glorious Bride to rule Israel and the world. What more could we ask?

So, if we are not to suffer from spiritual myopia, we must recognize what the Lord is doing with Israel, not shrinking from it as though our own interests will be overshadowed. Rather, we rejoice in these developments, with full assurance that our own redemption draws ever closer.

Click to expand...


Again, this is simply this authors “end times” beliefs forcing him to see things this way. If you are a Premill, Pretrib believer this scenario MUST be true. If there is no rapture, and IF the many who believe the great tribulation was in AD70 are correct this entire doctrine falls flat! If those who profess that the “he who makes a covenant with many” in Daniel chapter 9 is indeed Jesus Christ and not some spooky “Antichrist” coming to take over the world, then again, this doctrine falls flat.

Dispensationalism is FORCED to create two peoples of God in order to promote a secrete rapture, the take over of earth by Satan for seven years, and the slaughter of 75% of the Jewish Nation in order to punish them for something that they were already punished for in AD70.

You should be able to clearly see through this attempt to prop up an “end times” scenario.

I pray that you do!*


----------



## MOSES

Revelation 11:8
and their dead bodies will lie in the street of *the* *great city *. . . where their Lord was crucified [Jerusalem].
Revelation 16:19 
*The great city* was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered Babylon the great, to make her drain the cup of the wine of the fury of his wrath.
Revelation 17:18
And the woman [mystery babylon] that you saw is *the great city*


Perhaps this is overly simple...but John seems to use the term "the great city" to specifically refer to Jerusalem. Making "the great city" be different cities or a future city would be quite confusing to John's first century audience.


----------



## Leslie

How do you deal with the seven hills on which sits the scarlet harlot? Granted that the arguments for Jerusalem are strong, but does it have seven hills like Rome does?


----------



## Anton Bruckner

Leslie said:


> How do you deal with the seven hills on which sits the scarlet harlot? Granted that the arguments for Jerusalem are strong, but does it have seven hills like Rome does?


the 7 hills is Rome. Jerusalem used Rome to persecute the early Christians. It was the Pharisees that seduced Pontius Pilate to crucify the Lord Jesus.


----------



## MOSES

Leslie said:


> How do you deal with the seven hills on which sits the scarlet harlot? Granted that the arguments for Jerusalem are strong, but does it have seven hills like Rome does?



I agree with Anton.

The harlot was sitting on the beast, i.e, she was being supported by Rome. Rome gave her her position, until Rome (and the beast) hated her and burnt her with fire and devoured her (rev. 17:16).

As for the 7 hills, the Angel tells us in the interpretation that they are 7 kings. What is important is who the 7 kings are...NOT what or where the 7 geological features called hills or mountains are.

An interesting side note though: Jerusalem, like Rome, also has 7 hills (mt. Moriah being the center one). Most people never think of this, but if you look into it you will find the names of the 7 hills in Jerusalem...(I have them in one of my books here, but I will need to look it up)


----------



## YXU

Personally, I took this view as the most possible way.

But our Confession did not treat it this way.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Theognome

holyfool33 said:


> When I was a Postmil Preterist I held that the Antichrist was Nero and Mystery Babylon was Apostate Jerusalem. Be careful reading Russel though he is a full preterist. O fcourse my views have now changed seeing that I now hold a futriest view in that the Antichrist will rise up out of Europe after the raspture of the church to persicute the jewish remnent during the seven year tribulation.



I hold to a Amil Historical perspective, though I am sympathetic to the Partial Preterist view. But concerning Nero- He died in 67AD- before Revelation was written. It seems unlikely that he'd be the one referenced to.

Theognome


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Theognome said:


> holyfool33 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was a Postmil Preterist I held that the Antichrist was Nero and Mystery Babylon was Apostate Jerusalem. Be careful reading Russel though he is a full preterist. O fcourse my views have now changed seeing that I now hold a futriest view in that the Antichrist will rise up out of Europe after the raspture of the church to persicute the jewish remnent during the seven year tribulation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hold to a Amil Historical perspective, though I am sympathetic to the Partial Preterist view. But concerning Nero- He died in 67AD- before Revelation was written. It seems unlikely that he'd be the one referenced to.
> 
> Theognome
Click to expand...


Unless you hold that Revelation was written prior to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 as I do.


----------



## Theognome

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> holyfool33 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was a Postmil Preterist I held that the Antichrist was Nero and Mystery Babylon was Apostate Jerusalem. Be careful reading Russel though he is a full preterist. O fcourse my views have now changed seeing that I now hold a futriest view in that the Antichrist will rise up out of Europe after the raspture of the church to persicute the jewish remnent during the seven year tribulation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hold to a Amil Historical perspective, though I am sympathetic to the Partial Preterist view. But concerning Nero- He died in 67AD- before Revelation was written. It seems unlikely that he'd be the one referenced to.
> 
> Theognome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you hold that Revelation was written prior to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 as I do.
Click to expand...


Actually, I do. But I don't believe it was written before ad67.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

So you would date Revelation to between 67 and 70?


----------



## Theognome

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> So you would date Revelation to between 67 and 70?



It's already been demonstrated that I'm not the most educated person here- indeed, I expect to be corrected as opposed to confirmed. 

Apocalyptic prophecies are of course, found in the OT, but they are written before the even spoken of, not after. Thus dating it prior to Titus's siege of Jerusalem isn't too difficult for me.

After the death of Nero, you had three quick attempts to take the throne of Rome (Galba, Otho and Vitellius) before Vespasian held the throne in July of 69. This was a period of great turmoil in the Roman empire, as well as rebellion in Jerusalem. The problem I have with dating the book prior to Nero's death is... his death. if Revelation speaks of a specific person in this destruction, Titus or Vespasian would be far more logical than Nero, particularly since although Nero blamed Christians for the burning of Rome, the Roman people blamed Nero.

Also, the quick succession of emperors would and did, in turn, cause social and political instability- and such instability is good reason to exhort the Church to remain true and faithful. 1st, 2nd and 3rd John would seem (to me) reasonable responses to this instability during the period between Nero and Vespasian, culminating in the apocalyptic prophecy of what would come during the new dynasty's reign.

Theognome


----------



## kalawine

Theognome said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you would date Revelation to between 67 and 70?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's already been demonstrated that I'm not the most educated person here- indeed, I expect to be corrected as opposed to confirmed.
> 
> Apocalyptic prophecies are of course, found in the OT, but they are written before the even spoken of, not after. Thus dating it prior to Titus's siege of Jerusalem isn't too difficult for me.
> 
> After the death of Nero, you had three quick attempts to take the throne of Rome (Galba, Otho and Vitellius) before Vespasian held the throne in July of 69. This was a period of great turmoil in the Roman empire, as well as rebellion in Jerusalem. The problem I have with dating the book prior to Nero's death is... his death. if Revelation speaks of a specific person in this destruction, Titus or Vespasian would be far more logical than Nero, particularly since although Nero blamed Christians for the burning of Rome, the Roman people blamed Nero.
> 
> Also, the quick succession of emperors would and did, in turn, cause social and political instability- and such instability is good reason to exhort the Church to remain true and faithful. 1st, 2nd and 3rd John would seem (to me) reasonable responses to this instability during the period between Nero and Vespasian, culminating in the apocalyptic prophecy of what would come during the new dynasty's reign.
> 
> Theognome
Click to expand...


Gary Demarr had me convinced that Revelation was written before 70 AD. Then I got into Kim Riddlebarger for awhile and he brought doubts to my weary mind.  Now I don't know what to think about it though I can't help thinking that the Partial Preterist view seems to keep things more in perspective.


----------



## Theognome

kalawine said:


> Gary Demarr had me convinced that Revelation was written before 70 AD. Then I got into Kim Riddlebarger for awhile and he brought doubts to my weary mind.  Now I don't know what to think about it though I can't help thinking that the Partial Preterist view seems to keep things more in perspective.



When all else fails, there's always the 'pan-mil' perspective- no matter what we argue, it will all pan out in the end. Christ will come again in power and glory, and all of us will rejoice.

Theognome


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

kalawine said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you would date Revelation to between 67 and 70?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's already been demonstrated that I'm not the most educated person here- indeed, I expect to be corrected as opposed to confirmed.
> 
> Apocalyptic prophecies are of course, found in the OT, but they are written before the even spoken of, not after. Thus dating it prior to Titus's siege of Jerusalem isn't too difficult for me.
> 
> After the death of Nero, you had three quick attempts to take the throne of Rome (Galba, Otho and Vitellius) before Vespasian held the throne in July of 69. This was a period of great turmoil in the Roman empire, as well as rebellion in Jerusalem. The problem I have with dating the book prior to Nero's death is... his death. if Revelation speaks of a specific person in this destruction, Titus or Vespasian would be far more logical than Nero, particularly since although Nero blamed Christians for the burning of Rome, the Roman people blamed Nero.
> 
> Also, the quick succession of emperors would and did, in turn, cause social and political instability- and such instability is good reason to exhort the Church to remain true and faithful. 1st, 2nd and 3rd John would seem (to me) reasonable responses to this instability during the period between Nero and Vespasian, culminating in the apocalyptic prophecy of what would come during the new dynasty's reign.
> 
> Theognome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gary Demarr had me convinced that Revelation was written before 70 AD. Then I got into Kim Riddlebarger for awhile and he brought doubts to my weary mind.  Now I don't know what to think about it though I can't help thinking that the Partial Preterist view seems to keep things more in perspective.
Click to expand...


Well to sway you back I would recommend Ken Gentry's Before Jerusalem Fell. 

Free online here...


----------



## YXU

Gentry's argument is very convincing and sound. But I start to think about the historical view now, maybe the case is not that easy to identify.


----------



## kalawine

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Well to sway you back I would recommend Ken Gentry's Before Jerusalem Fell.
> 
> Free online here...



Thanks! I've wanted to read this anyway. Now I don't have to buy it! 

My confusion came because Riddlebarger claims that the partial preterists choose the earlier date to suit their theology. When it comes to exactly when the book was written no one seems to want to make a strong claim. There seems (to me) to be a little doubt on both sides. I lean heavily toward PP but I don't want to choose a date for the book of Revelation to justify my theology. That being said, I realize I still have a lot of study to do.


----------



## shackleton

What helped for me was reading "Before Jerusalem Fell" by Gentry and his explanation of the book of Matthew and the correlations between the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation. 

Take Josephus' "War of the Jews" into account as well, a lot of the things predicted by Jesus seemed to have happened in the events leading up to the destruction of the Temple. 

The reason for the destruction of the Temple makes more sense when taking into account how Jesus was bringing a lawsuit against the Jews for their rejection of God and doing it the same way the prophets of the OT did. The destruction of the Temple and the events that lead up to it are similar to the events leading up to the destruction of Solomon's Temple, war, destruction, exile. 

God is divorcing Israel for her adultery, the Temple is stoned, in a sense by the siege machines of Rome and then God is free to marry again and marries the church.


----------



## KMK

I know that Erick is a sharp dude, but for anyone lurking, I would not recommend reading anything by Russell. Read Gentry, DeMar, Riddlebarger etc. instead. 



> 2 Tim 2:16-18 But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.


----------



## TimV

> God is divorcing Israel for her adultery, the Temple is stoned, in a sense by the siege machines of Rome and then God is free to marry again and marries the church.



Interesting thought, thanks.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

shackleton said:


> What helped for me was reading "Before Jerusalem Fell" by Gentry and his explanation of the book of Matthew and the correlations between the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation.
> 
> Take Josephus' "War of the Jews" into account as well, a lot of the things predicted by Jesus seemed to have happened in the events leading up to the destruction of the Temple.
> 
> The reason for the destruction of the Temple makes more sense when taking into account how Jesus was bringing a lawsuit against the Jews for their rejection of God and doing it the same way the prophets of the OT did. The destruction of the Temple and the events that lead up to it are similar to the events leading up to the destruction of Solomon's Temple, war, destruction, exile.
> 
> God is divorcing Israel for her adultery, the Temple is stoned, in a sense by the siege machines of Rome and then God is free to marry again and marries the church.



Gentry, Kik, et al's reading of the Olivet Discourse is frankly the biblical way to read Matt 24 & 25.


----------



## MW

"Mystery Babylon" is no longer a "mystery" if it is simply to be identified with a geopolitical entity. At that point it is just plain "Babylon."


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

armourbearer said:


> "Mystery Babylon" is no longer a "mystery" if it is simply to be identified with a geopolitical entity. At that point it is just plain "Babylon."



Rev. Winzer -- Have you read Samuel Petto's commentary on Revelation? I gather it contains an appendix "proving Pagan Rome was not Babylon and that the Jews shall be Converted," which sounds very interesting to me.


----------



## TaylorOtwell

The may be slightly off topic, but can anyone cite sources that prove the siege of Jerusalem last 3.5 years. I often see this quoted as a fact, however, no source is given. Did Josephus mention this anywhere?


----------



## TimV

Josephus isn't considered a good source for a couple reasons including switching sides and self aggrandizement, but the siege didn't last 3.5 years, it lasted a few months. Masada fell three years later, and perhaps the 3.5 year figure you've seen is the length of time of the whole rebellion?

PS remember there were several sieges of Jerusalem. I think Jerusalem has fallen a dozen time since Christ, and will more than likely fall that number of times in the future.


----------



## TaylorOtwell

TimV said:


> Josephus isn't considered a good source for a couple reasons including switching sides and self aggrandizement, but the siege didn't last 3.5 years, it lasted a few months. Masada fell three years later, and perhaps the 3.5 year figure you've seen is the length of time of the whole rebellion?
> 
> PS remember there were several sieges of Jerusalem. I think Jerusalem has fallen a dozen time since Christ, and will more than likely fall that number of times in the future.



OK, Thanks. Most of the places I had seen this figure quoted was in reference to the passage regarding the trampling of the city by Gentiles for 42 months.


----------



## KMK

TimV said:


> *Josephus isn't considered a good source *for a couple reasons including switching sides and self aggrandizement, but the siege didn't last 3.5 years, it lasted a few months. Masada fell three years later, and perhaps the 3.5 year figure you've seen is the length of time of the whole rebellion?
> 
> PS remember there were several sieges of Jerusalem. I think Jerusalem has fallen a dozen time since Christ, and will more than likely fall that number of times in the future.



Personally, I grow weary of those who quote Josephus as if he is inspired, but have never heard anyone doubt his worthiness as an historical source. Can you elaborate on the two points you make, Tim?


----------



## TimV

> Personally, I grow weary of those who quote Josephus as if he is inspired, but have never heard anyone doubt his worthiness as an historical source. Can you elaborate on the two points you make, Tim?



Sure, I'll plan on starting a new thread, unless anyone here remembers a thread where it's already been dealt with.

Regards


----------



## MOSES

There is only one city that fits the bill of mystery Babylon..as I state above this city was already called Jerusalem (by implication) by John earlier in Revelation. But, Jesus also mentions something.

Speaking of the judgment against Jerusalem he says:

“But when the king heard about it, he was furious; and he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and *burned up their city*” (Matt 22:7).

Now Revelation

the beast [Rome] will hate the prostitute [Babylon]. They will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and *burn her up with fire*, Rev 17


The Roman army was sent and burned up the city (the harlot, babylon)...this is a historical fact and Jerusalem is the only city that clearly fits the bill in histroy.


----------



## MOSES

TaylorOtwell said:


> The may be slightly off topic, but can anyone cite sources that prove the siege of Jerusalem last 3.5 years. I often see this quoted as a fact, however, no source is given. Did Josephus mention this anywhere?



If your looking for a Literalist only view on the 42 months mentioned in Rev. 11:2 concerning the Gentiles and Jerusalem...it is not the siege itself, the siege did not last 42 months. 
Vespian recieved his comission from Nero and declared war on Jerusalem in February AD 67...the siege ended with the destruction of Jerusalem in August AD 70. That is 42 months. From the declaration of war upon Jerusalem to its destruction was 42 months.

Perhaps that helps...(but, my personal view is not quite that literalistic).

I'll get the Josephus quotes for you to confirm those dates when I get a chance.


----------



## TaylorOtwell

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



Would it really be accurate to describe Jerusalem as reigning over the kings of the earth? It seems more accurate to say that the kings of the earth were reigning over Jerusalem.


----------



## MrMerlin777

KMK said:


> I know that Erick is a sharp dude, but for anyone lurking, I would not recommend reading anything by Russell. Read Gentry, DeMar, Riddlebarger etc. instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Tim 2:16-18 But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
Click to expand...



There are other books no doubt. But even Charles Spurgeon said even though Russell's argument goes too far, that there is plenty in the book that still render's it usefull. Though his critique most definitely disagrees with Russel's arguments he did have this to say about The Parousia...

"Though the author's theory is carried too far, it has so much of truth in it, and throws so much new light upon obscure portions of the Scriptures, and is accompanied with so much critical research and close reasoning, that it can be injurious to none and may be profitable to all."...Charles Spurgeon

Granted we are free to disagree with Spurgeon as with any one who comments on a writing.


----------



## Stomata leontôn

Sorry if this is a bit outside the current flow of conversation.

My understanding of the the identity of Babylon is thematic. The world empire at any time of history is so identified. Reading the notes in the Geneva Bible, this is quite clear. At first, this Babylon was the Roman Empire. When it became Christian, over time arose the Rome Church's empire to take its place. The Geneva Bible at the time of its publication takes us this far through human history.

In our day, although the Roman Church has not truly repented and may yet play a role in world importance, the world empire must be identified _primarily_ elsewhere. That means that the beast, or "Babylon" is to be associated with the current global empire of finance. Ask yourself who or what group dominates the world today?

In that sense, modern Jerusalem may well rule over the earth and thus is in rebellion against Him Who is the one true Sovereign.

The actual answer should be debated, but what the question of what the whore of Babylon means is that the relevance of Revelation did not end when the power of the Church of Rome waned in the wake of the glorious Protestant Reformation.

At the same time, books, whose covers showed Gorbachev as the beast or that equate locusts with helicopters, are fantastical and make the book of Revelation of no use.

Israel today has no more relation to Biblical Israel in ethnicity or religion than does Mormonism, which makes like claims (_cf_. Rev. 2:9 and 3:9). Once Israel completely rejected Jesus Christ from their theology, they ceased to be the people of God. Moreover, _history is quite clear_ that they were completely wiped out as an identifiable group for all time. Historically, the true Jews became Christians long ago (indeed the historical Jews were the first Christians) and the people of God, whether in the Old or New Testaments, are and have always been those whose hope is in the Son of God. 

Anyone who does not believe in Him is an enemy of God. We Christians are the people of God both earthly and heavenly. God made Jacob as the sands of the seashore -- us world-wide Gentiles -- and like the stars of heaven -- us spiritual believers in Christ, Who descended from Jacob, adopted us into His family, and fulfilled Scripture completely.


----------



## MOSES

TaylorOtwell said:


> And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth. - Revelation 17:18
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would it really be accurate to describe Jerusalem as reigning over the kings of the earth? It seems more accurate to say that the kings of the earth were reigning over Jerusalem.
Click to expand...


Context is key here.

Revelation is oriental (hebraic) in nature...it is covenantal, it is hebraic-apcolyptic and it is repetiative of OT literature (something like 2/3s of all the verses in Rev. are direclty from OT scriptures, or carry the same symbolism)

So it is with Rev. 17:18

Jerusalem reigned over all the kings of the land (namely, especially, the covenant land)...note: earth here is translated either as "earth" or "land" or more specifically "kin-land"

So, seeing this scripture through OT language...Jerusalem is the "center" she is the city of the great king, she sits on the holy hill, she is prominent in the whole land...she is the center of the kingdom and all the rulers of the land are to submit to her...(note: same with that levitical "taxation"). And all the peoples of the land must go into her yearly.
She sat as "queen" in THE LAND...

Again, you have to look at this through the OT scrptures...not through modernist thought.
Rome did not sit as queen, Rome was not the center of the land (Jerusalem was)...covenantally speaking the rulers in the land did not submit to Rome, but to Jerusalem.

Note: There is also more that could be brought into this with the politics of Jerusalem in the first century...in regards to Herod, the king...and all the other provinces that had to submit to Jerusalem (and Herod).

*The "rod" or the "scepter" of rule was IN Jerusalem.*


----------



## MOSES

Peter H said:


> Sorry if this is a bit outside the current flow of conversation.
> 
> My understanding of the the identity of Babylon is thematic. The world empire at any time of history is so identified. Reading the notes in the Geneva Bible, this is quite clear. At first, this Babylon was the Roman Empire. When it became Christian, over time arose the Rome Church's empire to take its place. The Geneva Bible at the time of its publication takes us this far through human history.
> 
> In our day, although the Roman Church has not truly repented and may yet play a role in world importance, the world empire must be identified _primarily_ elsewhere. That means that the beast, or "Babylon" is to be associated with the current global empire of finance. Ask yourself who or what group dominates the world today?
> 
> In that sense, modern Jerusalem may well rule over the earth and thus is in rebellion against Him Who is the one true Sovereign.



Peter
Have you read Hendricksen's book on Revelation? Have you heard anything about progressive parallelsim?

Personally, I hold to the old hermeneutical position that there is only one true and one sense to any scripture...the author's original meaning.

Did John originally mean, when speaking of babylon in Rev..that he was speaking about a global empire of finance?

Revelation is an epistle...just like the other epistles, written to the churches. The only meaning is the meaning that John meant when he wrote those words..

But..

In a way I agree with you...in regards to a type of progressive parallelism.

in my opinion, babylon of Rev. was apostate judaism and Jerusalem...that is what John meant when he wrote..but, there is a truth to the idea that perhaps, the Roman Catholich church under the lawless popes, was a "TYPE" of Babylon of Rev...but not THE Babylon of Rev.

See, apostate Rome became just like (or at least very similar to) apostate Judaism, Jerusalem and the babylon of Rev...
This is a type of parallelism.
This is NOT a fulfillment of prophecy, nor is it what John had in mind...but it is a "type"

Another example: Hitler is a type, a parallel, too the Beast of Revelation...though John was not writing about Hitler.

There are many other parellels in Rev. too.

note: To over simplify what I mean:
Benedict Arnold is a type of Judas Iscariot...because of both of thier betraying


----------



## MW

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Mystery Babylon" is no longer a "mystery" if it is simply to be identified with a geopolitical entity. At that point it is just plain "Babylon."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. Winzer -- Have you read Samuel Petto's commentary on Revelation? I gather it contains an appendix "proving Pagan Rome was not Babylon and that the Jews shall be Converted," which sounds very interesting to me.
Click to expand...


Andrew, I have a copy of Revelation Unvailed but I haven't had an opportunity to read it. The part about the conversion of the Jews has sparked my interest.


----------



## Christusregnat

armourbearer said:


> "Mystery Babylon" is no longer a "mystery" if it is simply to be identified with a geopolitical entity. At that point it is just plain "Babylon."



If I am not mistaken, the modern English usage of the term "mystery" is not a one-for-one equivalent of the Koine Greek usage of "musterion". For instance, Paul talks about the "mystery of the gospel" which God has revealed to us; not which is unrevealed.

The Pythagrians had "mysteries" that only the "elect" knew: crossing your legs a certain way, and only eating certain types of beans. We too have "mysteries" which only the elect know, such as the mystery of the gospel, and the mystery Babylon, etc.

A mystery is a revealed secret. John assumes that elect that read his book would know who or what Babylon was. It was spiritually called Egypt and Sodom, and was where our Lord was crucified. 

Cheers,


----------



## MW

Christusregnat said:


> A mystery is a revealed secret. John assumes that elect that read his book would know who or what Babylon was. It was spiritually called Egypt and Sodom, and was where our Lord was crucified.



It is also something which has an open manifestation but works in a hidden manner. The fact that Revelation accumulates the various names which stand for great wickedness and organised rebellion against God means that it references this as a hidden power which works throughout history.


----------



## MOSES

Being the Angel explained to John the "mystery" of this babylon, and John records it for his readers...I personally think that we can all say, the secrets out, the mystery has been revealed..it is no longer a mystery....

When I saw her [myster babylon], I marveled greatly. 7 But the angel said to me, “Why do you marvel? *I will tell you the mystery of the woman*
Revelation17:6


----------



## Stomata leontôn

Useful response. I have not read that book. Do you recommend it? I'll have to ask my pastor what, more exactly, "progressive parallelism" means. My current framework is that revelation speaks of historical themes for the church until the Lord's return. I think that it is prophetic, and since the _precise_ historical identification with the figures in Revelation goes on as history goes on, John had to write in terms broad enough to be relevant to each period of history.

This was where Dispensationalism failed. The Soviet Union, for example, was typically identified precisely with a figure in Revelation. When the Soviet Union fell, everything was proven wrong. Gorbachev was not the beast nor the locusts helicopters. Its use of the figures was too narrow.

If the Roman Empire and the Church of Rome are identified _narrowly_ or _exclusively_, then we have run out of prophesies; the Lord has not yet returned. But I do not think the note-writers in the Geneva Bible were wrong on their identification (my pastor says they have been corrected on other points, and the notes themselves admit conjecture in some places). So if they weren't wrong there, how do I interpret this issue today? 

I note how the note-writers make the identification with the RE and RC ca 1500 and see how the same approach would fit today. You see, they do not make an _exclusive_ id with the RC. They also id it with the earlier RE, which was already defunct. They indicate _both_ are prophesied, and I cannnot find fault. So who is like the world empires of secular and religious Rome? Has Rome an heir? Certainly we do have a world-dominating empire very much like Rome's. Thus, can I say that our age is as much _prophesied_ in Revelation as it was in 100 AD or 1500?

Be it so, who represents the figure of the beast now?



MOSES said:


> Peter
> 
> Have you read Hendricksen's book on Revelation? Have you heard anything about progressive parallelsim?
> 
> Personally, I hold to the old hermeneutical position that there is only one true and one sense to any scripture...the author's original meaning
> 
> ....


----------



## MW

MOSES said:


> Being the Angel explained to John the "mystery" of this babylon, and John records it for his readers...I personally think that we can all say, the secrets out, the mystery has been revealed..it is no longer a mystery....
> 
> When I saw her [myster babylon], I marveled greatly. 7 But the angel said to me, “Why do you marvel? *I will tell you the mystery of the woman*
> Revelation17:6



V. 9, "here is the mind which hath wisdom." Obviously it is not so plain that one can make a clear identification with a geopolitical entity.


----------



## shackleton

Peter H said:


> My current framework is that revelation speaks of historical themes for the church until the Lord's return. I think that it is prophetic, and since the _precise_ historical identification with the figures in Revelation goes on as history goes on, John had to write in terms broad enough to be relevant to each period of history.



This is a popular view but I do not believe that it takes hermeneutics into account. Why was the book written? For whom was the book written? Did John write some letter with the intention that it had nothing to do with them but was intended for people who lived hundreds of years later. I think we should first seek to understand what it would have meant to the intended audience.


----------



## MOSES

Peter H said:


> Useful response. I have not read that book. Do you recommend it?



It is ok..(it has been a long time and I'm not in the full "idealist" camp)...I just thought that that was the perspective *you* were coming from.




Peter H said:


> Thus, can I say that our age is as much _prophesied_ in Revelation as it was in 100 AD or 1500?



One of the rules I've applied to myself in the study of eschatology is this:

*Not every apocolyptic utterance is a prophecy needing fulfillment*

Much of Rev. is apocolyptic (revealing a heavenly truth, or a spritural mystery) and does not need a historical one time event fulfillment of prophecy (wether futurist or preterist or historicist)
e.g. Revelation 19


----------



## MOSES

armourbearer said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being the Angel explained to John the "mystery" of this babylon, and John records it for his readers...I personally think that we can all say, the secrets out, the mystery has been revealed..it is no longer a mystery....
> 
> When I saw her [myster babylon], I marveled greatly. 7 But the angel said to me, “Why do you marvel? *I will tell you the mystery of the woman*
> Revelation17:6
> 
> 
> 
> 
> V. 9, "here is the mind which hath wisdom." Obviously it is not so plain that one can make a clear identification with a geopolitical entity.
Click to expand...



I agree.

But that is why it is not *only* a "geopolitical entity", in my view at least.

Jerusalem is the visible representative of apostate judaism...the mystery is not simply a reference to a "geopolitical entity"...but...something that is much higher.
The questions of "how" and "why" are what make this a mystery, requiring a mind with wisdom.


----------



## MW

MOSES said:


> I agree.
> 
> But that is why it is not *only* a "geopolitical entity", in my view at least.
> 
> Jerusalem is the visible representative of apostate judaism...the mystery is not simply a reference to a "geopolitical entity"...but...something that is much higher.
> The questions of "how" and "why" are what make this a mystery, requiring a mind with wisdom.



If this is the case, then it manifests itself in numerous geopolitical entities and cannot be identified with one in particular, as per the question originating this thread. And the Revelation is clearly not concerned with where the manifestation of this mystery is to be found so much as the nature of the mystery itself -- taking unjust and violent dominion.


----------



## Christusregnat

armourbearer said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mystery is a revealed secret. John assumes that elect that read his book would know who or what Babylon was. It was spiritually called Egypt and Sodom, and was where our Lord was crucified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is also something which has an open manifestation but works in a hidden manner. The fact that Revelation accumulates the various names which stand for great wickedness and organised rebellion against God means that it references this as a hidden power which works throughout history.
Click to expand...


I think I see where you are coming from, but I don't believe that (in context) John is giving a generic reference to evil forces. The specific local reference to all of the "capitols of wickedness": Egypt, Sodom and Babylon, may be summed up in one place; the place where our Lord was crucified. This is perfectly consistent with our Lord's denunciation of Jerusalem and the Jewish nation in Matthew 21:33-46, 23:29-39, and 24:1-35.

Cheers,


----------



## Stomata leontôn

MOSES said:


> This is a popular view but I do not believe that it takes hermeneutics into account. Why was the book written? For whom was the book written? Did John write some letter with the intention that it had nothing to do with them but was intended for people who lived hundreds of years later. I think we should first seek to understand what it would have meant to the intended audience.



Right. I guess my point is to address the Geneva Bible, the product of the Calvinist Reformers in Geneva. It represents an updating of the traditional view of the church.

What the note-writers seem to do to keep the relevance both for John's own generation and future generations, is to divide the book into three parts. The middle part (I think the smallest) they seem to interpret as both applicable to John's current generation while prophesying for the future. Thus, the beast was represented in John's time by the Roman Empire, they say, and by the Roman Church in theirs. So in their thinking, John saw a beast that was represented in his own time and would be still represented in later generations. This implies that if everything in Revelation but the Lord's return were fulfilled in John's time, then Revelation would become a figurative history-book with use to John's generation but little to anyone else.

Thus the Geneva Reformers reject a strictly historicist interpretation. Put another way, the beast still lives. Who or what represents it today? That seems to me to be the question that the note-writers of the Geneva Bible pose to us who have come later.


----------



## Stomata leontôn

MOSES said:


> I agree.
> 
> But that is why it is not *only* a "geopolitical entity", in my view at least.
> 
> Jerusalem is the visible representative of apostate judaism ...the mystery is not simply a reference to a "geopolitical entity"...but...something that is much higher.
> 
> The questions of "how" and "why" are what make this a mystery, requiring a mind with wisdom.



Yes. I, too, see an emphasis on a visible representative of apostate Judaism (and Rev. 2:9 and 3:9 again). I think the Reformers were careful not to make _exclusive_ identifications with geopolitical entities.


----------



## MOSES

Matt 23:35-37
35 And so upon you [Jerusalem] will come all the righteous *blood* that has been shed on *earth*, from the blood of righteous [Prophets] Abel to the blood of Zechariah [Saints] 36 I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation. 37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets


Revelation 18:24
24 And in her was found the *blood* of prophets and of saints,
and of *all who have been slain on earth*.”

note: The above language of Jesus speaking about Jerusalem and John speaking about (Jerusalem?) is essentially the same.


This is the "high" mystery...not that babylon is simply jerusalem...but that Jerusalem, God's chosen city, was used by God for his purposes, and was now a wicked, wicked, apostate nation that God would judge and utterly destroy.

From the oh so important "jewishness" of the book of Revelation...this would be a tremendous mystery.
That the blessed city of the great king, Jerusalem had become:

She has become a dwelling place for demons,
a haunt for every unclean spirit
Rev. 17


This is a great mystery...and an even greater mystery, to them of John' day, was the coming of the New Jerusalem.
Again, this is all very "high" "mysterious" and "apocloyptic"

This is, in my opinion, what validates the mystery...of the "geopolitical entity"


----------



## MW

Christusregnat said:


> I think I see where you are coming from, but I don't believe that (in context) John is giving a generic reference to evil forces. The specific local reference to all of the "capitols of wickedness": Egypt, Sodom and Babylon, may be summed up in one place; the place where our Lord was crucified. This is perfectly consistent with our Lord's denunciation of Jerusalem and the Jewish nation in Matthew 21:33-46, 23:29-39, and 24:1-35.



In the letters to the seven churches there are those who say they are Jews and are not. The historical allusions to Jerusalem as a pretended centre of worship but as truly hostile to God's kingdom make a strong rhetorical case against these Jews without having to identify the actual city or its destruction. As in Matt. 24, the temple's theological significance is in the forefront. As the kingdom of God moved out into the world the phenomenon of Jewish opposition displayed itself in the pagan persecution of Christianity. Hence the Revelation shows that the phenomenon is true wherever man seeks to take dominion in opposition to God.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

armourbearer said:


> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Mystery Babylon" is no longer a "mystery" if it is simply to be identified with a geopolitical entity. At that point it is just plain "Babylon."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. Winzer -- Have you read Samuel Petto's commentary on Revelation? I gather it contains an appendix "proving Pagan Rome was not Babylon and that the Jews shall be Converted," which sounds very interesting to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Andrew, I have a copy of Revelation Unvailed but I haven't had an opportunity to read it. The part about the conversion of the Jews has sparked my interest.
Click to expand...


It sparks mine too. I would be glad to hear your thoughts about it if the opportunity presents itself. 

I have found the following work, among others, to be very useful in studying that general issue.

Links and Downloads Manager - Revelation & Eschatology - The Restoration of the Jews: The History, Principles, and Bearings of the Question -- David Brown - The PuritanBoard


----------



## MW

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> It sparks mine too. I would be glad to hear your thoughts about it if the opportunity presents itself.
> 
> I have found the following work, among others, to be very useful in studying that general issue.
> 
> Links and Downloads Manager - Revelation & Eschatology - The Restoration of the Jews: The History, Principles, and Bearings of the Question -- David Brown - The PuritanBoard



Excellent! David Brown's "Christ's Second Coming" convinced me Premillennialism leads to serious theological problems; I am putting this work on the Jews next on my list and hopefully I will get to the appendix of Petto afterwards ... the appendix of his book, that is.


----------



## KMK

MrMerlin777 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that Erick is a sharp dude, but for anyone lurking, I would not recommend reading anything by Russell. Read Gentry, DeMar, Riddlebarger etc. instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Tim 2:16-18 But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There are other books no doubt. But even Charles Spurgeon said even though Russell's argument goes too far, that there is plenty in the book that still render's it usefull. Though his critique most definitely disagrees with Russel's arguments he did have this to say about The Parousia...
> 
> "Though the author's theory is carried too far, it has so much of truth in it, and throws so much new light upon obscure portions of the Scriptures, and is accompanied with so much critical research and close reasoning, that it can be injurious to none and may be profitable to all."...Charles Spurgeon
> 
> Granted we are free to disagree with Spurgeon as with any one who comments on a writing.
Click to expand...


Interesting quote. Nevertheless, I stand by my warning. (although with fear and trembling) 

I have personal experience watching a close friend get obsessed with Russell and his ilk to the exclusion of any other school of thought. Hyper-preterism leads to broken relationships within families and churches. It is better not to travel down that road at all. 

Part of the problem with Russell is when he says things like this: 



> All this is undeniable; and yet it would be too much, to expect that this will be regarded as an adequate fulfilment of our Savior's words by many whom prejudice-or traditional interpretations have taught to see more in the prophecy than ever inspiration included in it.



He pits his readers against church history. Anyone who disagrees with him is prejudiced or blind. And likewise, all who agree with him are more enlightened than all of those great theologians who somehow missed what Russell sees. 

In addition, Russell believes Josephus is an "unexceptionable witness". I suspect he believes Josephus to be inspired. Weird.


----------



## ModernPuritan?

Leslie said:


> How do you deal with the seven hills on which sits the scarlet harlot? Granted that the arguments for Jerusalem are strong, but does it have seven hills like Rome does?



the Vatican is a cross the river from rome, and even during the roman empires, i bieleve that the city of rome did not go across the river... who was that general who once he crossed the river had bought an army into rome?


----------



## ModernPuritan?

*Jerusalem as Whore article.*

that ole whore of babylon

The Whore of Babylon

Richard Anthony

The Angel said that he will tell us the mystery of the Woman (Rev 17:7, 18). In fact, the whole book of Revelation gives us clues, so we will start our investigation there. Once we have the internal clues the external evidence shouldn't be too hard to find...



The Woman = Jerusalem

The most compelling evidence that the woman is Jerusalem is that scripture says it's where Jesus was crucified! (Revelation 11:8). Compare Jerusalem before her Judgment: (Revelation 11:8) and after Her Judgment (Revelation 21:10).

There are two Jerusalem's. One was the literal, fleshly type of the true, spiritual Jerusalem. One was the Zion of Israel - the abode or rallying point of God's chosen nation, the other was the true Zion - the Abode of God and by extension the spiritual Home/Abode of His people where they are written and their spirits assemble before Him in awe and worship.

Jerusalem was once the Beautiful City of God, but now she has become a den of devils and full of idolatries and filthy abominations. God is going to judge Her and give her name to the spiritually faithful - those from both the nation of Israel and the heathen nations. Thus will His "Jerusalem" and His "Zion" be pure.

God also uses the term "this great city" to refer to Jerusalem in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 22:6-9).

The Woman has killed the Saints - the Prophets, Apostles, and Jesus (Revelation 11:8; 17:6; 18: 20,24).

Jerusalem has killed the Saints - the Prophets, Apostles, and Jesus (Matthew 23:29-36; Luke 6:22-23, 26; 11:47-52; 13:28,33-34; Acts 2:23,36; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 7:51-52; Romans 11:2-5; 1 Corinthians 2:7-8; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15, James 5:10).

Mt. Zion & Jerusalem are the Capital City for the Saints (Hebrews 12:18,22-24).

Heaven is The Country for Saints: (Philippians 3:20, Hebrews 11:13-16, Galatians 4:24-26, Psalm 48:2; 74:2; 76:2; 87:5, Matthew 5:34-35).

The "Dragon" was the source of power and authority for the Beast (also referred to as the serpent, the Devil, and Satan at Revelation 12:9, 20:2). Were the Romans ever called "children of the devil"? The Jews were: (John 8:44; Acts 13:10; 1 John 3:10)! The Jews were also called "serpents" and "offspring of vipers" (Matthew 23:33)! And that same verse (Matthew 23:33) condemns them to a fiery end similar to the end of the Beast and his followers (Revelation 19:19-21)!

The 7 Mountains (Revelation 17:9) refer to Jerusalem, not Rome. The seven mountains upon which Jerusalem was built are Mount Zion, Mount Ophel, Mount Moriah, Mount Bezetha, Mount Acra, Mount Gareb, and Mount Goath.

Some might ask, "If the 'whore' is Jerusalem, how could the 'beast' be Nero Caesar, from Rome? Would not the "beast" be someone who rules over Jerusalem? The answer is that Caesar DID rule over Jerusalem. The highest religious authorities in Jerusalem, and all the Jews living in Jerusalem, even admitted that Caesar is their king (John 19:15).


Revelation 11:8

Let's look at the term "Sodom." John wrote that this is a "figurative" name. That means it does not tell us the actual name of the city, but it's spiritual condition. Once more, in letting the Bible interpret itself, we find this is a reference to Jerusalem. In Isaiah, chapter 1, after declaring that he had a "vision…concerning Judah and Jerusalem" (verse 1), Isaiah wrote, "Hear the words of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom…" In Jeremiah 23:14, because of the adulterous prophets, God said that Jerusalem and her inhabitants had "become to Me like Sodom."

But what about "Egypt?" No where in the Bible is Jerusalem called Egypt. However, that the first century generation was also in an exodus. While Old Testament Israel's exodus was from the bondage of Egypt, the New Testament Israel's exodus was from the bondage of the Old Covenant Law. The most recognizable passage that depicts this "new exodus" is found in I Corinthians 10:1-11. Paul wrote, "And all these things happened to those [as] examples, and was written for our warning; to whom the ends of the ages have arrived." His contextual foundation for this statement was the Old Testament exodus from Egyptian bondage. He wrote that they had passed through the sea (verse 1). They ate manna and drank from the rock (verse's 3-4). He then relays how they wandered in the wilderness (verse 5), became idolaters (verse 7), tried the Lord and were destroyed by serpents (verse 9). This shows us that, just like the "type and shadow" of the Old Testament and their deliverance from bondage, the New Testament saints were undergoing the same exodus. The only difference was that Paul's generation was the reality to which the Old Testament example pointed.

Furthermore, in Luke 13:33-34, Jesus said, "[T]oday and tomorrow, and on the following [day], I must travel on, because it is not possible [for] a prophet to perish outside Jerusalem. Jerusalem! Jerusalem! The [one] killing the prophets, and stoning those having been sent to her." Then, in Matthew 23:29-37, Jesus blasted the Jews of His day for killing the prophets and the apostles. He declared that they are the children of their fathers who also killed the prophets. Then in verse 32, Jesus said that they would complete the sin that their fathers started. But the most crucial evidence is found in verse 35, where Jesus said, "upon you (i.e., the Jews of His day) may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on the earth." Then He said, "I tell you the truth, all of these things will happen to you people who are living now. Jerusalem, Jerusalem! You kill the prophets and stone to death those who are sent to you" (verse's 36-37). In both passages, Jesus told the Jews of His day that they were guilty of "all the righteous blood shed upon the earth" (see also Acts 7:51-52).


Notice of Divorce

In Jeremiah 31:32, God said he was "an husband" to Israel. In Jeremiah 3:8-14 and Isaiah 50:1, God states that he was married to Israel, and gave Israel a bill of divorcement, because Israel committed adultery. This occured around 721 B.C.

Jesus said, "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: (Deuteronomy 24:1) But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." (Matthew 5:31-32). 

God said that the only Just reason for divorcing your wife was "on the ground of unfaithfulness." Also, that a "written notice of divorce" must be given. Would God not abide by His own laws? Prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, God served Israel her divorce papers. And this allowed for a new bride.

Revelation 21:2, "And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband." 

When was the Old Jerusalem destroyed? 70AD. So when should the "new Jerusalem" have been established? 70AD. Aren't the followers of Christ now the "bride" of Christ? Yes. In 721 B.C., God divorced Himself from the adulterous, harlot wife and gave to His Son a new Bride in 70 A.D.! That's Us!


Ezekiel 16

Ezekiel 16 is very compelling evidence that Jerusalem is the whore. Here are some excerpts:

Ezekiel 16:1-2, "And there is a word of Jehovah unto me, saying, ..Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations, and thou hast said:"

Ezekiel 16:7-8, "...And comest in with an excellent adornment, Breasts have been formed, and thy hair hath grown -- And thou, naked and bare! And I pass over by thee, and I see thee, And lo, thy time is a time of loves,"

Ezekiel 16:15-18, "And thou dost trust in thy beauty, And goest a-whoring because of thy renown, And dost pour out thy whoredoms On every passer by -- to him it is. And thou dost take of thy garments, And dost make to thee spotted high-places, And dost go a-whoring upon them, They are not coming in -- nor shall it be! And thou dost take thy beauteous vessels Of My gold and My silver that I gave to thee, And dost make to thee images of a male, And dost go a-whoring with them, And dost take the garments of thy embroidery, And thou dost cover them, And My oil and My perfume thou hast set before them."

Ezekiel 16:20, "And thou dost take thy sons and thy daughters Whom thou hast born to Me, And dost sacrifice them to them for food. Is it a little thing because of thy whoredoms,"

Ezekiel 16:22, "And with all thine abominations and thy whoredoms,..."

Ezekiel 16:25-26, "At every head of the way thou hast built thy high place, And thou dost make thy beauty abominable, And dost open wide thy feet to every passer by, And dost multiply thy whoredoms, And dost go a-whoring unto sons of Egypt, Thy neighbours -- great of appetite! And thou dost multiply thy whoredoms, To provoke Me to anger."

Ezekiel 16:28-38, "And thou goest a-whoring unto sons of Asshur, Without thy being satisfied, And thou dost go a-whoring with them, And also -- thou hast not been satisfied. And thou dost multiply thy whoredoms On the land of Canaan -- toward Chaldea, And even with this thou hast not been satisfied. How weak is thy heart, An affirmation of the Lord Jehovah, In thy doing all these, The work of a domineering whorish woman. In thy building thine arch at the head of every way, Thy high place thou hast made in every broad place, And -- hast not been as a whore deriding a gift. The wife who committeth adultery -- Under her husband -- doth receive strangers. To all whores they give a gift, And -- thou hast given thy gifts to all thy lovers, And dost bribe them to come in unto thee, From round about -- in thy whoredoms. And the contrary is in thee from women in thy whoredoms, That after thee none doth go a-whoring; And in thy giving a gift, And a gift hath not been given to thee; And thou art become contrary. Therefore, O whore, hear a word of Jehovah, Thus said the Lord Jehovah: Because of thy brass being poured forth, And thy nakedness is revealed in thy whoredoms near thy lovers, And near all the idols of thy abominations, And according to the blood of thy sons, Whom thou hast given to them; Therefore, lo, I am assembling all thy lovers, To whom thou hast been sweet, And all whom thou hast loved, Besides all whom thou hast hated; And I have assembled them by thee round about, And have revealed thy nakedness to them, And they have seen all thy nakedness. And I have judged thee -- judgments of adultresses, And of women shedding blood, And have given thee blood, fury, and jealousy."

Ezekiel 16:41, " And burnt thy houses with fire, And done in thee judgments before the eyes of many women, And I have caused thee to cease from going a-whoring, And also a gift thou givest no more."

The evidence is overbearing. All throughout scripture, Jerusalem is said to be the whore.
====



* The Woman is called "Sodom" and "Egypt" and "Babylon" (Revelation 11:8; 17:5, 14:8, 18:10, 21).

* The Woman is located where Jesus was crucified (Revelation 11:8).

* The Woman's dwelling place becomes a River of Blood (Revelation 14:20).

* The Woman is Split into 3 Divisions (Revelation 16:19).

* The Woman "sits on many waters" (Revelation 17:1) and these "waters" are diverse peoples (Revelation 17:15).

* The Woman has fornicated with the Heathen World against God (Revelation 17:2, 18:3, 18:9).

* The Woman is born along on a Beast (Revelation 17:3).

* The Woman is the Mother of all Whores and Abominable Atrocities (Revelation 17:5).

* The Woman is Drunk on the Blood of O.T. & N.T. Saints (Revelation 17:6, 18:24, 18:20).

* The Woman is responsible for the death of the Prophets and Apostles (Revelation 17:6, 18:20, 18:24).

* The Woman sits on 7 Mountains (Revelation 17:9).

* The Woman is a dwelling place of devils (Revelation 18:2).

* The Woman is a Prison for Evil Spirits (Revelation 18:2).

* The Woman is a Cage, full of Dirty Birds (Revelation 18:2).

* The Woman has a Full Cup of Iniquities (Revelation 18:5).

* The Woman is Doubly Judged (Revelation 18:6).

* The Woman considers herself a Queen (Revelation 18:7).

* The Woman still considers herself Married (Revelation 18:7).

* The Woman was Rich and Mourned when Judged (Revelation 18:10, 16-19).

* The Woman merchandised the Souls of Men (Revelation 18:13).

* The Woman is pronounced Desolate (Revelation 18:19).

* The Woman's sound of Joy is taken away (Revelation 18:22).

* The Woman's position of Creativity is taken away (Revelation 18:22).

* The Woman's authority as someone equipped to Judge is removed (Revelation 18:22).

* The Woman's Light-Bearing ability is snuffed out (Revelation 18:23).

* The Woman's Bridegroom has Divorced Her (Revelation 18:23).

* The Woman's Engagement/Marriage has been annulled/abrogated (Rev 18:23).

* The Woman is called "This/That Great City" (Revelation 11:8, 14:8, 16:19, 17:18, 18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21, 21:10).

dont remeber where i found this artilce.. as soon as i can find the link ill post it.


----------



## TimV

> the Vatican is a cross the river from rome, and even during the roman empires, i bieleve that the city of rome did not go across the river... who was that general who once he crossed the river had bought an army into rome?



Jeff, your grammar is a bit confusing, but I think you mean Julius Cesar and the Rubicon. But that river was far away from the city of Rome.


----------

