PDA

View Full Version : Discussion "What is the Narrative of the book of Revelation?"



markedward
Sep 8th 2008, 01:37 PM
I thought this article was interesting enough to post.



What is the Narrative of the book of Revelation?

Is there a narrative to Revelation? Does it have a unifying storyline? Despite the many complexities of the book, the answer to this question is a definite yes; there is a clear storyline to Revelation. Revelation is a tale of two cities, Babylon and New Jerusalem; these two cities are also said to be two women, the harlot and the bride (Rev. 17:1-3; Rev. 21:9-10). The judgments of Revelation culminate with the destruction of one of these women and then the marriage of the other. The harlot (Babylon) is destroyed and then the bride (New Jerusalem) becomes married (Rev. 19:1-7).

There is an exact parallel of Revelation’s contrast of two women/cities in Galatians. In Galatians 4:21-31 we are told of two women who are two wives (Hagar and Sarah) who correspond to two cities (physical Jerusalem and heavenly Jerusalem). We are told that these two women/cities are symbolic of two communities of people, those under the old covenant and those under the new covenant.

Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewomen. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all…But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. Galatians 4:21-31 NKJV emphasis added

It is obvious that the “Jerusalem above” of Galatians 4:26 corresponds to the New Jerusalem of Revelation (which comes down out of heaven, Rev. 21:2, 10); but could first-century Jerusalem (Gal. 4:25) correspond to Mystery Babylon (Rev. 17:5)? The answer is Yes! Babylon is called “the great city” in Revelation (Rev. 17:18; 18:21), The very first place in Revelation that we encounter “the great city” (Rev. 11:8) we are told that it was where Jesus was crucified (i.e. Jerusalem). Like pagan Babylon, Jerusalem had destroyed God’s Temple (i.e. Jesus, John 2:18-22) and was persecuting God’s people. In Revelation, as in Galatians (4:29), one women persecutes the other (i.e. the harlot persecutes the bride, Rev. 17:6; 18:24, cf. Matthew 23:29-37). Similarly in Revelation, as in Galatians (4:30), one of the two women is cast out (Rev. 18:21) while the other woman receives her inheritance (the Lord takes the bride as His wife).

It should be noted that, like the two women of Galatians, the two women of Revelation are also two wives. It is obvious that the bride is a wife, as she becomes married (Rev. 21:9). It is easy to miss that the harlot is also a wife (cf. Ezek. 16:32), a widowed wife. Unfaithful Israel went from being a queen to a widow when she had her King killed (Rev. 18:7; cf. Matt 21:5). Again, the subject of Revelation is exactly the same as Galatians 4:21-31; both are talking about two women/cities who are two wives. The contrast of these two women is being used as a vehicle to contrast the two covenants and those who were part of them.

The judgments of Revelation climax in chapter 17-19 with the destruction of the persecuting city of Babylon (Rev. 18:24) and then God marries His bride (Rev. 19:7). The exact same scenario of the burning of a wicked city (Matt. 22:7; Rev. 18:8) followed by a wedding is found in Matthew 22:

And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said: The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding and they were not willing to come. Again he sent out other servants, saying ‘Tell those who are invited “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.”’ But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. And the rest seized his servants treated them spitefully, and killed them. But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies destroyed those murders and burned up their city. Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.’ So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests. Matthew 22:1-10.

The above parable (which obviously speaks of the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem) explains why it is that right after the destruction of harlot Babylon that the bride becomes married.

After these things I heard a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying “Alleluia! Salvation and glory and honor and power belong to the Lord our God! For true and righteous are His judgments, because He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication; and He has avenged on her the blood of His servants shed by her.” Again they said, “Alleluia! Her smoke rises up forever and ever!” And the twenty-four elders and the four living creature fell down and worshiped God who sat on the throne, saying “Amen! Alleluia!” Then a voice came from the throne saying, “Praise our God, all you His servants and those who fear Him, both small and great!” And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude, as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty thundering saying, “Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns! Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready.” Revelation 19:1-7

The harlot motif is a common Old Testament image for unfaithful Israel: Lev 17:7; Lev 20:5-6; Num 14:33; Num 15:39; Deut 31:16; Judg 2:17; Judg 8:27; 1 Chr. 5:25; 2 Chr 21:11; Ps 73:27; Hosea 1:2; Hos 2:2-5; Hos 4:15; Hos 9:1; Jer. 2:20; Jer 3:2,9,13: Jer 5:7,11; Jer 13:27; Eze. 6:9; Eze 16; Eze 23; Eze 43:7,9. The harlot of Revelation is arrayed in the colors of the Temple and clothes of the High Priest (Rev. 17:4; Rev. 18:16; cf. Ex. 28). The merchandise of harlot Babylon is the merchandise that was used in the construction and furnishings of the Temple (Rev. 18:12) as well as its sacrifices (v. 13). The plagues of Babylon (pestilence, mourning, famine and burning, Rev. 18:8 NASB) are exactly what happened to Jerusalem (not Rome) at AD 70.

The destruction of the harlot city in Revelation is drawn from the destruction of Jerusalem in Ezekiel 16. In Ezekiel 16 God said that the nations that Jerusalem had been unfaithful with (committing spiritual harlotry) would turn on her and destroy her with fire (vv. 35-43). Harlot Jerusalem is portrayed in Ezekiel 16 as being dressed in the furnishings of the tabernacle, her “food” consisting of items used in the sacrifices (vv. 10-13). This parallels the harlot Babylon being dressed in the furnishings of the Temple and garments of the High Priest, her “merchandise” consisting of items used in the sacrifices (Rev. 18:13). Revelation 17-19 is showing, the AD 70 burning of unfaithful Jerusalem and her Temple at the end of the old covenant age. Moses was told that this would happen in the “latter days”

And the Lord said to Moses: ‘Behold, you will rest with your fathers; and this people will rise and play the harlot with the gods of the foreigners of the land, where they go to be among them, and they will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them. Then My anger shall be aroused against them in that day, and I will forsake them and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured. And many evils and troubles shall befall them, so that they will say in that day, ‘Have not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?’…and evil with befall [them] in the latter days. Deut. 31:16-17, 29

This is the storyline of Revelation: God judges and ultimately destroys His unfaithful old covenant wife and then marries His new covenant bride.



I have believed for a long while now that there is a tremendous amount of evidence both within just the Revelation, and within the entirety of Scripture, to support the notion that "Babylon" is representative of apostate Israel (and Jerusalem singularly). But some of the above mentioned themes (such as the comparison of Jesus' parable of the wedding banquet) is something I've not noticed before.

third hero
Sep 8th 2008, 06:55 PM
Apparently, the one who wrote the article is Amillennial, since it makes many asumptions concerning Jerusalem that amils tend to believe.

John146
Sep 8th 2008, 08:49 PM
I thought this article was interesting enough to post.



What is the Narrative of the book of Revelation?

Is there a narrative to Revelation? Does it have a unifying storyline? Despite the many complexities of the book, the answer to this question is a definite yes; there is a clear storyline to Revelation. Revelation is a tale of two cities, Babylon and New Jerusalem; these two cities are also said to be two women, the harlot and the bride (Rev. 17:1-3; Rev. 21:9-10). The judgments of Revelation culminate with the destruction of one of these women and then the marriage of the other. The harlot (Babylon) is destroyed and then the bride (New Jerusalem) becomes married (Rev. 19:1-7).

There is an exact parallel of Revelation’s contrast of two women/cities in Galatians. In Galatians 4:21-31 we are told of two women who are two wives (Hagar and Sarah) who correspond to two cities (physical Jerusalem and heavenly Jerusalem). We are told that these two women/cities are symbolic of two communities of people, those under the old covenant and those under the new covenant.

Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewomen. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all…But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. Galatians 4:21-31 NKJV emphasis added

It is obvious that the “Jerusalem above” of Galatians 4:26 corresponds to the New Jerusalem of Revelation (which comes down out of heaven, Rev. 21:2, 10); but could first-century Jerusalem (Gal. 4:25) correspond to Mystery Babylon (Rev. 17:5)? The answer is Yes! Babylon is called “the great city” in Revelation (Rev. 17:18; 18:21), The very first place in Revelation that we encounter “the great city” (Rev. 11:8) we are told that it was where Jesus was crucified (i.e. Jerusalem). Like pagan Babylon, Jerusalem had destroyed God’s Temple (i.e. Jesus, John 2:18-22) and was persecuting God’s people. In Revelation, as in Galatians (4:29), one women persecutes the other (i.e. the harlot persecutes the bride, Rev. 17:6; 18:24, cf. Matthew 23:29-37). Similarly in Revelation, as in Galatians (4:30), one of the two women is cast out (Rev. 18:21) while the other woman receives her inheritance (the Lord takes the bride as His wife).

It should be noted that, like the two women of Galatians, the two women of Revelation are also two wives. It is obvious that the bride is a wife, as she becomes married (Rev. 21:9). It is easy to miss that the harlot is also a wife (cf. Ezek. 16:32), a widowed wife. Unfaithful Israel went from being a queen to a widow when she had her King killed (Rev. 18:7; cf. Matt 21:5). Again, the subject of Revelation is exactly the same as Galatians 4:21-31; both are talking about two women/cities who are two wives. The contrast of these two women is being used as a vehicle to contrast the two covenants and those who were part of them.

The judgments of Revelation climax in chapter 17-19 with the destruction of the persecuting city of Babylon (Rev. 18:24) and then God marries His bride (Rev. 19:7). The exact same scenario of the burning of a wicked city (Matt. 22:7; Rev. 18:8) followed by a wedding is found in Matthew 22:

And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said: The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding and they were not willing to come. Again he sent out other servants, saying ‘Tell those who are invited “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.”’ But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. And the rest seized his servants treated them spitefully, and killed them. But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies destroyed those murders and burned up their city. Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.’ So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests. Matthew 22:1-10.

The above parable (which obviously speaks of the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem) explains why it is that right after the destruction of harlot Babylon that the bride becomes married.

After these things I heard a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying “Alleluia! Salvation and glory and honor and power belong to the Lord our God! For true and righteous are His judgments, because He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication; and He has avenged on her the blood of His servants shed by her.” Again they said, “Alleluia! Her smoke rises up forever and ever!” And the twenty-four elders and the four living creature fell down and worshiped God who sat on the throne, saying “Amen! Alleluia!” Then a voice came from the throne saying, “Praise our God, all you His servants and those who fear Him, both small and great!” And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude, as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty thundering saying, “Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns! Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready.” Revelation 19:1-7

The harlot motif is a common Old Testament image for unfaithful Israel: Lev 17:7; Lev 20:5-6; Num 14:33; Num 15:39; Deut 31:16; Judg 2:17; Judg 8:27; 1 Chr. 5:25; 2 Chr 21:11; Ps 73:27; Hosea 1:2; Hos 2:2-5; Hos 4:15; Hos 9:1; Jer. 2:20; Jer 3:2,9,13: Jer 5:7,11; Jer 13:27; Eze. 6:9; Eze 16; Eze 23; Eze 43:7,9. The harlot of Revelation is arrayed in the colors of the Temple and clothes of the High Priest (Rev. 17:4; Rev. 18:16; cf. Ex. 28). The merchandise of harlot Babylon is the merchandise that was used in the construction and furnishings of the Temple (Rev. 18:12) as well as its sacrifices (v. 13). The plagues of Babylon (pestilence, mourning, famine and burning, Rev. 18:8 NASB) are exactly what happened to Jerusalem (not Rome) at AD 70.

The destruction of the harlot city in Revelation is drawn from the destruction of Jerusalem in Ezekiel 16. In Ezekiel 16 God said that the nations that Jerusalem had been unfaithful with (committing spiritual harlotry) would turn on her and destroy her with fire (vv. 35-43). Harlot Jerusalem is portrayed in Ezekiel 16 as being dressed in the furnishings of the tabernacle, her “food” consisting of items used in the sacrifices (vv. 10-13). This parallels the harlot Babylon being dressed in the furnishings of the Temple and garments of the High Priest, her “merchandise” consisting of items used in the sacrifices (Rev. 18:13). Revelation 17-19 is showing, the AD 70 burning of unfaithful Jerusalem and her Temple at the end of the old covenant age. Moses was told that this would happen in the “latter days”

And the Lord said to Moses: ‘Behold, you will rest with your fathers; and this people will rise and play the harlot with the gods of the foreigners of the land, where they go to be among them, and they will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them. Then My anger shall be aroused against them in that day, and I will forsake them and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured. And many evils and troubles shall befall them, so that they will say in that day, ‘Have not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?’…and evil with befall [them] in the latter days. Deut. 31:16-17, 29

This is the storyline of Revelation: God judges and ultimately destroys His unfaithful old covenant wife and then marries His new covenant bride.



I have believed for a long while now that there is a tremendous amount of evidence both within just the Revelation, and within the entirety of Scripture, to support the notion that "Babylon" is representative of apostate Israel (and Jerusalem singularly). But some of the above mentioned themes (such as the comparison of Jesus' parable of the wedding banquet) is something I've not noticed before.I believe there's at least a few problems with this article.

One problem is that Jesus was not crucified in Jerusalem. I know this is hard for some people to accept. It's very easy to assume He was crucified within the city, but He was not. I have scriptural evidence to back up my claim, in case anyone thinks I'm making this up.

Hebrews 12
12Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. 13Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.
14For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.

Jesus suffered "without the gate" which means outside the city gates. Then it's interesting how it points out that we seek the city to come, which we know is the heavenly new Jerusalem. It's as if Jesus purposely made certain that He would be killed outside of Jerusalem as if to show He was not just dying for the sins of the Jews only. That's speculation on my part, but the point is that He was crucified outside the city gates. Here is more evidence of this:

John 19
17And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:
18Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.
19And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
20This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

He was near the city, but still outside the city gates. He was not crucified in Jerusalem. So, while I agree that the great city of Rev 11:8 is the same great city as mystery Babylon the great city of Rev 11:8 is not earthly first century Jerusalem. And, while I agree that it is portrayed as a counterpart to the new Jerusalem, I believe it is portrayed as a spiritual counterpart, not an earthly counterpart to the heavenly city. It has descriptions given to it that do not describe first century earthly Jerusalem, such as it reigning over the kings of the earth and it sitting upon many waters which represent multitudes of people throughout the earth (Rev 17:1,15,18).

Another problem I have with the article is that it portrays Matthew 22:1-10 as if it was fulfilled in 70 AD. No. That parable is speaking about the spreading of the gospel starting with the Jews and then to the Gentiles. Guess what? The gospel is still being spread around the world. Guests are still being invited to the wedding. The wedding is not over. The marriage has not yet been fully consummated. Likewise, Rev 19:1-7 is not yet fulfilled for the same reason.

So, while it can't be denied that first century earthly Jerusalem resembles mystery Babylon I don't see that earthly Jerusalem fully satisfies the description of mystery Babylon. I believe all the false religions of the world oppose the new Jerusalem, which is the bride of the Lamb. That's us, the church. That's where we reside spiritually. We are spiritually part of the heavenly Jerusalem. The heavenly Jerusalem above is the mother of us all (Gal 4:26). We have already entered it spiritually (Heb 12:22) even though it will come down from heaven to the new earth in the future.

2And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
3For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

Was first century earthly Jerusalem the hold of EVERY foul spirit? Did ALL nations drink the wine of the wrath of her fornication? How so? And how exactly did the merchants of the earth wax rich through the abundance of her delicacies? Again, there are parts of the description of Babylon that resemble earthly 1st century earthly Jerusalem, but also parts that don't seem to describe that city at all.

Eric

markedward
Sep 9th 2008, 12:38 AM
I believe there's at least a few problems with this article.

One problem is that Jesus was not crucified in Jerusalem. I know this is hard for some people to accept. It's very easy to assume He was crucified within the city, but He was not. I have scriptural evidence to back up my claim, in case anyone thinks I'm making this up.Maybe the problem is you're reading it too technically?

Revelation 11:8 says "where our Lord also was crucified." The word "where" is not the same thing as "in." Even being outside of Jerusalem would be considered being at the location "where" Jerusalem is. The point in Revelation 11:8 is that "the great city" is being identified as the place "where our Lord also was crucified."

And given that one of the main points taken from 11:8 is the identification of "the great city" with "where our Lord also was crucified" begs the question: If you don't think "the great city ... where our Lord also was crucified" is Jerusalem, what city is it supposed to be then? He wasn't crucified at Rome, Cairo or any other city. Jesus was sentenced to death in Jerusalem, He carried His cross from Jerusalem, and He was executed outside of Jerusalem. Jesus was crucified "where" Jerusalem is.

Regardless of whether or not "the great city" of 11:8 is the same "great city" seen throughout the rest of the Revelation that is directly identified with "Babylon," it is purely Biblical fact that Jesus was crucified at Jerusalem, which is what 11:8 is saying. After that is said, it is merely up to interpretation as to whether "the great city" Jerusalem of 11:8 is the same "great city" Babylon of Revelation 17-18. Which is what this article was gearing at.


Apparently, the one who wrote the article is Amillennial, since it makes many asumptions concerning Jerusalem that amils tend to believe.Well, the main focus of the article is the identification of "Babylon," not so much the author's amillenialism.

John146
Sep 9th 2008, 09:01 PM
Maybe the problem is you're reading it too technically?No, I don't believe so. Unless my understanding of the words "outside" and "near" is flawed.


Revelation 11:8 says "where our Lord also was crucified." The word "where" is not the same thing as "in." Even being outside of Jerusalem would be considered being at the location "where" Jerusalem is. The point in Revelation 11:8 is that "the great city" is being identified as the place "where our Lord also was crucified."And you are saying it is Jerusalem and using that as evidence that the great city Babylon is Jerusalem. So, being technical, in this case, is necessary. Are you backing away from your contention that the great city of Rev 11:8 is Jerusalem? Whatever the great city is, it's compared spiritually to Sodom and Egypt. And it's even called Babylon. In a spiritual sense, the great city has components of all of those cities. I believe the point is to say that the Lord was crucified on the earth in this world. The world is spiritually like Sodom and Egypt. That's why we are not supposed to be of the world even though we are in the world. The world loves its own.


And given that one of the main points taken from 11:8 is the identification of "the great city" with "where our Lord also was crucified" begs the question: If you don't think "the great city ... where our Lord also was crucified" is Jerusalem, what city is it supposed to be then?It's not a city at all except in a spiritual sense. New Jerusalem is a city, but not an earthly one. Babylon, too, is not an earthly city, but I believe represents the spiritual wickedness and false religion of the world, which is counter to the heavenly new Jerusalem .


He wasn't crucified at Rome, Cairo or any other city. Jesus was sentenced to death in Jerusalem, He carried His cross from Jerusalem, and He was executed outside of Jerusalem. Jesus was crucified "where" Jerusalem is.Babylon is also called a woman. Should I insist that Babylon is a woman the way you are insisting that it must be an earthly city?


Regardless of whether or not "the great city" of 11:8 is the same "great city" seen throughout the rest of the Revelation that is directly identified with "Babylon," it is purely Biblical fact that Jesus was crucified at JerusalemNo, it says He was crucified outside the gate and near the city, not within it. And I think that was for a reason. He was dying for the sins of the world and not just for the Jews.


which is what 11:8 is saying. After that is said, it is merely up to interpretation as to whether "the great city" Jerusalem of 11:8 is the same "great city" Babylon of Revelation 17-18. Which is what this article was gearing at.Prove to me that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem and then I'll adjust the way I look at it. If Revelation 11 is fulfilled, which I think is what you believe (correct me if I'm wrong), tell me who the two witnesses were that were killed on the streets of Jerusalem and then were resurrected and ascended to heaven?

If the great city of Revelation 11:8 was earthly Jerusalem then explain the next verse:

8And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.


If this is in the past, how did the whole world see the bodies of the two witnesses in Jerusalem? Remember, that was before television or the Internet. ;)



Eric

markedward
Sep 10th 2008, 05:21 PM
And you are saying it is Jerusalem and using that as evidence that the great city Babylon is Jerusalem. So, being technical, in this case, is necessary. Are you backing away from your contention that the great city of Rev 11:8 is Jerusalem? Whatever the great city is, it's compared spiritually to Sodom and Egypt. And it's even called Babylon. In a spiritual sense, the great city has components of all of those cities. I believe the point is to say that the Lord was crucified on the earth in this world. The world is spiritually like Sodom and Egypt. That's why we are not supposed to be of the world even though we are in the world. The world loves its own.

[QUOTE]It's not a city at all except in a spiritual sense. New Jerusalem is a city, but not an earthly one. Babylon, too, is not an earthly city, but I believe represents the spiritual wickedness and false religion of the world, which is counter to the heavenly new Jerusalem.This is one of the points brought up in the article: the contrast between Babylon (the prostitute) and New Jerusalem (the bride) is directly parallel to a passage from Galatians. In this passage, Paul explicitly contrasts physical, earthly Jerusalem to spiritual, heavenly Jerusalem. Paul then directly says that the physical Jerusalem is "cast out," while the heavenly Jerusalem is sanctified by God. This directly parallels what we see happening in the Revelation; Babylon is called "the great city" numerous times, to emphasize it's "city" aspect, and it is directly identified with the location where Jesus was crucified


Babylon is also called a woman. Should I insist that Babylon is a woman the way you are insisting that it must be an earthly city?No - the Old Testament repeatedly refers to Jerusalem as an adulterous woman. It didn't make Jerusalem any less of a real city simply because it was being turned into the symbol of a harlot wife.


No, it says He was crucified outside the gate and near the city, not within it. And I think that was for a reason. He was dying for the sins of the world and not just for the Jews.I already said: John uses the word "where" not the word "in." He didn't say "the great city ... in which our Lord was crucified." He said "where [He] was crucified." Saying Jesus was crucified "where" Jerusalem is, is not the same thing as saying He was actually crucified "in" Jerusalem. John was simply making the connection: Jesus was crucified. "The great city" is where He was crucified at. Ergo, everyone who reads that statement will immediately think of Jerusalem in place of "the great city." It's a simple answer and it doesn't require jumping through loops to try to figure out, because it's plain as day.

Whether it was inside or outside the city is irrelevant, He was still at the city of Jerusalem when He was crucified.

Prove to me that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem and then I'll adjust the way I look at it.Did you not even pay attention to what I had written (in my previous post)?

The word "where" is not the same thing as "in." Even being outside of Jerusalem would be considered being at the location "where" Jerusalem is.

I never said Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem.


If Revelation 11 is fulfilled, which I think is what you believe (correct me if I'm wrong), tell me who the two witnesses were that were killed on the streets of Jerusalem and then were resurrected and ascended to heaven?For one, you seem to be equating me with the author of the article. I didn't write the article. The author of the article and I might agree on this point, but I just wanted to clarify that.

Secondly, you're attacking the idea of a past fulfillment (Preterism, essentially). One doesn't need to be a Preterist to believe that Babylon is Jerusalem. There are plenty of people of all of interpretive views (Preterist, Historicist, Futurist, Idealist, etc.) who believe that, at the least, "the great city" of 11:8 is Jerusalem, if not Babylon as a whole. Keep your focus on the topic of discussion (whether Babylon is earthly Jerusalem), not attacking a type of interpretation (Preterism).

John146
Sep 10th 2008, 06:01 PM
This is one of the points brought up in the article: the contrast between Babylon (the prostitute) and New Jerusalem (the bride) is directly parallel to a passage from Galatians. In this passage, Paul explicitly contrasts physical, earthly Jerusalem to spiritual, heavenly Jerusalem. Paul then directly says that the physical Jerusalem is "cast out," while the heavenly Jerusalem is sanctified by God.I appreciate and respect that he was at least trying to interpret scripture with scripture by referring to that passage. Nonetheless, I believe when you look at all of this as a whole it turns out that passage is not related to Revelation 11.


This directly parallels what we see happening in the Revelation; Babylon is called "the great city" numerous times, to emphasize it's "city" aspect, and it is directly identified with the location where Jesus was crucifiedIt's also called a woman several times. So, using your logic, it must be both a literal city and a literal woman. :rolleyes:


I already said: John uses the word "where" not the word "in." He didn't say "the great city ... in which our Lord was crucified." He said "where [He] was crucified." Saying Jesus was crucified "where" Jerusalem is, is not the same thing as saying He was actually crucified "in" Jerusalem. John was simply making the connection: Jesus was crucified. "The great city" is where He was crucified at. Ergo, everyone who reads that statement will immediately think of Jerusalem in place of "the great city." It's a simple answer and it doesn't require jumping through loops to try to figure out, because it's plain as day.Plain as day to one who insists on interpreting it literally. Not plain as day to me because I can see that Revelation is full of symbolic language and I can also see that it says people from throughout the world are able to gaze upon the bodies of the two witnesses that are lying in the street of the great city. If it's speaking of Jerusalem then explain to me how people throughout the world could gaze upon dead bodies in Jerusalem?


Whether it was inside or outside the city is irrelevant, He was still at the city of Jerusalem when He was crucified.He was near it and outside of it, but not in it.


Prove to me that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem and then I'll adjust the way I look at it.Did you not even pay attention to what I had written (in my previous post)?I sure did.


The word "where" is not the same thing as "in." Even being outside of Jerusalem would be considered being at the location "where" Jerusalem is.So you are saying you believe the great city is Jerusalem as well as the surrounding cities then?


I never said Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem.

For one, you seem to be equating me with the author of the article. I didn't write the article. The author of the article and I might agree on this point, but I just wanted to clarify that.

Secondly, you're attacking the idea of a past fulfillment (Preterism, essentially). One doesn't need to be a Preterist to believe that Babylon is Jerusalem. There are plenty of people of all of interpretive views (Preterist, Historicist, Futurist, Idealist, etc.) who believe that, at the least, "the great city" of 11:8 is Jerusalem, if not Babylon as a whole. Keep your focus on the topic of discussion (whether Babylon is earthly Jerusalem), not attacking a type of interpretation (Preterism).I am keeping my focus on the topic of discussion and I am not attacking a type of interpretation. I would make the same exact argument I'm making with you regarding Jesus being crucified outside of Jerusalem with a futurist or anyone else trying to claim that the "great city" is Jerusalem.

But, since you happen to be preterist and you believe Babylon is Jerusalem, why can't I ask you a question regarding your particular view? Why is asking a question seen as an attack? It's not. I'm curious as to how you personally come to your conclusion. I don't believe it's enough to just say "well, that's where Jesus was crucified, so there's your proof". That conclusion does not seem to take into account the surrounding verses.

So, if you don't mind, can you tell me how are "they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations" able to "see their dead bodies" (the two witnesses) lying "in the street of the great city"?

markedward
Sep 11th 2008, 05:33 AM
It's also called a woman several times. So, using your logic, it must be both a literal city and a literal woman.I did already say why it, Biblically (and according to "[my] logic"), isn't a literal woman.


He was near it and outside of it, but not in it.And, again, the Revelation never said "in". Being "where" it is at doesn't require being "in".


I am keeping my focus on the topic of discussion and I am not attacking a type of interpretation. I would make the same exact argument I'm making with you regarding Jesus being crucified outside of Jerusalem with a futurist or anyone else trying to claim that the "great city" is Jerusalem.No... you specifically turned your attention away from "Jerusalem" to "If this is a past fulfillment, who was such and such." You specifically said "past fulfillment." That is not you responding to a view held by Preterists/Futurists/etc. - your objection was to the "past fulfillment" aspect... you were focusing on a interpretive idea (that I, at least, had not brought up), not the interpretation itself. Essentially, your objection was "You believe in a past fulfillment, and since such-and-such (probably) didn't happen in the past, I will connect that and use it as a reason for why Jerusalem isn't Babylon." But in that case, you still need to deal with the numerous Futurist (and Historicist) interpretations that also believe Jerusalem is Babylon. So yes, you were shifting your focus from "Babylon/Jerusalem" to "Preterism".


I'm curious as to how you personally come to your conclusion. I don't believe it's enough to just say "well, that's where Jesus was crucified, so there's your proof". That conclusion does not seem to take into account the surrounding verses.This would take a long response, and I'm not sure if I have enough time tonight to prepare it... So if I don't respond to this in the next hour, await a detailed (and lengthy) response tomorrow.

Here you're asking me for how I came to my conclusion, and I have numerous reasons for my conclusion - but you should take note that my personal view is specifically Preteristic as to why Babylon is Jerusalem, but you should also remember, again, that even if you object to my own interpretations, there are still a large number of future-fulfillment interpretations that also say Jerusalem is Babylon.

John146
Sep 11th 2008, 07:27 PM
I did already say why it, Biblically (and according to "[my] logic"), isn't a literal woman.

And, again, the Revelation never said "in". Being "where" it is at doesn't require being "in".

No... you specifically turned your attention away from "Jerusalem" to "If this is a past fulfillment, who was such and such." You specifically said "past fulfillment." That is not you responding to a view held by Preterists/Futurists/etc. - your objection was to the "past fulfillment" aspect... you were focusing on a interpretive idea (that I, at least, had not brought up), not the interpretation itself. Essentially, your objection was "You believe in a past fulfillment, and since such-and-such (probably) didn't happen in the past, I will connect that and use it as a reason for why Jerusalem isn't Babylon." But in that case, you still need to deal with the numerous Futurist (and Historicist) interpretations that also believe Jerusalem is Babylon. So yes, you were shifting your focus from "Babylon/Jerusalem" to "Preterism".:rolleyes:


This would take a long response, and I'm not sure if I have enough time tonight to prepare it... So if I don't respond to this in the next hour, await a detailed (and lengthy) response tomorrow.

Here you're asking me for how I came to my conclusion, and I have numerous reasons for my conclusion - but you should take note that my personal view is specifically Preteristic as to why Babylon is Jerusalem, but you should also remember, again, that even if you object to my own interpretations, there are still a large number of future-fulfillment interpretations that also say Jerusalem is Babylon.And they try to say that Rev 11:8 says Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem which makes the great city Jerusalem and my argument that He was not crucified in Jerusalem goes for them, too.

markedward
Sep 12th 2008, 12:01 AM
:rolleyes:Dagnabbit, don't you roll your eyes at me.


And they try to say that Rev 11:8 says Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem which makes the great city Jerusalem and my argument that He was not crucified in Jerusalem goes for them, too.And my argument against your argument is that the Revelation never uses the word "in." Your whole argument depends on the word "in," which isn't even used. Your argument is dependent upon a technicality reading, where you're interpreting "where" to mean "inside of which". Being "where" a city is does not necessitate being "in" that city.

Example: there are dozens of catacombs tombs at Rome. Succinctly, they are called the "catacombs at Rome." Where are the catacombs? Rome. Specifically, they are all found outside of the city walls. But they were still "where" Rome was, and if someone, such as an archaeologist, is speaking of them, he and everyone else he was speaking to would associate the catacomb tombs with the city itself, because the catacombs contained the bodies of dead residents of the city. The catacombs aren't "in" Rome, but they are universally held to be "where" Rome is - they aren't disassociated from Rome simply because they're outside the city wall.

Likewise, John said "the great city." The reader then wonders "what city is this?" John follows up by saying "where our Lord was crucified." The reader will undoubtedly immediately think of Jerusalem. Jesus may not have been crucified within the city walls, but His death is directly associated with Jerusalem because He was in the city when He was sentenced to death, He carried His cross from the city, and He died outside of the city. His death was not "in" Jerusalem, but it was "at" Jerusalem. Trying to argue that He wasn't crucified "in" the city is simply trying to find a technical, complex idea where the simplest idea works best.

John146
Sep 12th 2008, 05:34 PM
Dagnabbit, don't you roll your eyes at me.

And my argument against your argument is that the Revelation never uses the word "in." Your whole argument depends on the word "in," which isn't even used.

Your argument is dependent upon a technicality reading, where you're interpreting "where" to mean "inside of which". Being "where" a city is does not necessitate being "in" that city.Okay, so the great city is the greater metropolitan Jerusalem area then?


Example: there are dozens of catacombs tombs at Rome. Succinctly, they are called the "catacombs at Rome." Where are the catacombs? Rome. Specifically, they are all found outside of the city walls. But they were still "where" Rome was, and if someone, such as an archaeologist, is speaking of them, he and everyone else he was speaking to would associate the catacomb tombs with the city itself, because the catacombs contained the bodies of dead residents of the city. The catacombs aren't "in" Rome, but they are universally held to be "where" Rome is - they aren't disassociated from Rome simply because they're outside the city wall.I don't think that's a valid comparison. Are you not saying you believe the great city is Jerusalem itself? Not the surrounding area. Not Israel. Jerusalem. Or are you saying it's Jerusalem as well as the surrounding area?


Likewise, John said "the great city." The reader then wonders "what city is this?"Or "what woman is this?" since Babylon is called both a great city and a woman/whore.


John follows up by saying "where our Lord was crucified." The reader will undoubtedly immediately think of Jerusalem. Jesus may not have been crucified within the city walls, but His death is directly associated with Jerusalem because He was in the city when He was sentenced to death, He carried His cross from the city, and He died outside of the city. His death was not "in" Jerusalem, but it was "at" Jerusalem. Trying to argue that He wasn't crucified "in" the city is simply trying to find a technical, complex idea where the simplest idea works best.I disagree. Also, you so far have no answer for how your view fits with Revelation 11:9. Can you tell me how Jerusalem can be a place where people from all over the world could gaze upon the bodies of the two witnesses? What is your understanding of the identity of the two witnesses?

moonglow
Sep 12th 2008, 06:16 PM
I agree with markedward on this...we all know Jesus wasn't physically killed IN the city limits because of their Jewish laws regarding the dead..it would defile all of them. We have to remember everyone was killed outside the city limits due to their OT laws they followed. Under Roman rule they couldn't even actually kill Jesus themselves which is why they went to Pilate to start with. Yet would we say everyone is their city was guiltless for His death simply because it happened outside of the city? We would say Jerusalem was not responsible for any deaths by stoning or other means simply because they had them carried outside the city gates before killing them? That doesn't make sense. That is why its common for us as Christians to refer to Jesus dying IN Jerusalem even though we know scriptures says He was taken out of the city limits. Its no different then a carnival coming to town here, setting up just outside of the city limits yet everyone saying the carnival is IN that city...so they would know where to go in finding it.

Stephen was stoned to death by the Jews but dragged out of the city gates before they actually stoned him for the same reasons Jesus was killed outside the city limits:

Acts 7

57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord; 58 and they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Jesus Himself held them responsible for the deaths of all of God's prophets..even before their was a physical place called Jerusalem.

Matthew 23
31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. 33 Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? 34 Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.


God bless

John146
Sep 12th 2008, 06:31 PM
I agree with markedward on this...we all know Jesus wasn't physically killed IN the city limits because of their Jewish laws regarding the dead..it would defile all of them. We have to remember everyone was killed outside the city limits due to their OT laws they followed. Under Roman rule they couldn't even actually kill Jesus themselves which is why they went to Pilate to start with. Yet would we say everyone is their city was guiltless for His death simply because it happened outside of the city? We would say Jerusalem was not responsible for any deaths by stoning or other means simply because they had them carried outside the city gates before killing them? That doesn't make sense. That is why its common for us as Christians to refer to Jesus dying IN Jerusalem even though we know scriptures says He was taken out of the city limits. Its no different then a carnival coming to town here, setting up just outside of the city limits yet everyone saying the carnival is IN that city...so they would know where to go in finding it.

Stephen was stoned to death by the Jews but dragged out of the city gates before they actually stoned him for the same reasons Jesus was killed outside the city limits:

Acts 7

57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord; 58 and they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Jesus Himself held them responsible for the deaths of all of God's prophets..even before their was a physical place called Jerusalem.

Matthew 23
31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. 33 Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? 34 Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

God blessHow do you interpret Rev 11:8-10?

8And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

How could Jerusalem have been a place where people from all over the world could view the dead bodies of the two witnesses?

moonglow
Sep 12th 2008, 08:22 PM
How do you interpret Rev 11:8-10?

8And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

How could Jerusalem have been a place where people from all over the world could view the dead bodies of the two witnesses?

I don't see the witnesses as literal individual people. If they were, tt would actually be easy for the 'world' back around the first century to see two dead bodies in the street because the world was a much smaller place and people traveled constantly.

In the future sense, there are millions of people in this world that don't have TV...how could they 'see' the bodies of these two? They couldn't. It could be hundreds of years if ever that every person in the world has a TV too. Those living in jungles on mountain, in deserts may never have any TV's. Plus more and more Christians are getting rid of their TV's because of the corruption on it so they also couldn't see the two dead bodies either. So even this cannot be fulfilled in the future. I think we need to dig deeper and see what the bible has to say about two witnesses.

God bless

John146
Sep 15th 2008, 07:47 PM
I don't see the witnesses as literal individual people.Neither do I. I believe it's a reference to the church.


In the future sense, there are millions of people in this world that don't have TV...how could they 'see' the bodies of these two? They couldn't. It could be hundreds of years if ever that every person in the world has a TV too. Those living in jungles on mountain, in deserts may never have any TV's. Plus more and more Christians are getting rid of their TV's because of the corruption on it so they also couldn't see the two dead bodies either. So even this cannot be fulfilled in the future. I think we need to dig deeper and see what the bible has to say about two witnesses.

God blessIf it's already fulfilled then please explain how the dead bodies of the witnesses were gazed upon by people all over the world if the bodies were only in Jerusalem? And do you believe that some people have already been physically resurrected and ascended to heaven? If so, what about 1 Corinthians 15:51-54?

petrobb
Jan 21st 2015, 05:27 PM
Jerusalem was larger than the city contained within the city wall. Many had built houses outside the city wall, and these were part of Jerusalem. All that the writer to the Hebrews is doing is illustrating the fact that Jesus was crucified outside the city walls. But He was crucified within wider Jerusalem. We can compare how the walled city of Kowloon (Kowloon City) is contained within wider Kowloon. We can compare how in the days of Joshua both Benjamin and Judah lived in Jerusalem at the same time as the Jebusites possessed it and refused Israel entry. Benjamin mingled with the Jebusites 'in Jerusalem' but in the days of David we know that the walled Jerusalem was possessed by the Jebusites. Judah and Benjamin had settled outside the city walls, but were still seen as living in Jerusalem.

Acts 2 tell us that people from every nation under Heaven had gathered in Jerusalem (and did so regularly for the Feasts). Thus there would be no difficulty in the dead bodies being seen by people of 'every nation under Heaven'.

Straightshot
Jan 21st 2015, 05:58 PM
Revelation does have a narrative from the beginning to the ending of the book, but one must know the following:

it is a set of individual visions that are repeated giving more details on certain subjects, so it is not necessarily in strict chronological order

There are also historical reach backs inset with in a given passage of scripture for overview

The first part of the book covers the Lord's message to the professing church, past and current

The He proceeds to project the things "hereafter" .... all future events that are still pending

The seals are selected portents of conditions of the coming tribulation period

All of the pre-tribulation church of the past and present will be made immortal and observing the Lord's removal of the seals of the scroll of the actual tribulation events to come .... this scroll will not open until He removes all of the seals

The tribulation event details are prefaced with the prelude of the 6th seal portent .... then the tribulation begins, but just before the 144000 of the children of Israel must be protected from the wiles of the period

The tribulation period then rolls starting in 8 and runs through 19 ending with Satan's trip to the abyss [20:1-3] .... it will last for 2550 days

The Lord will then rule over a mortal kingdom upon the earth for 1000 years from Jerusalem

Satan will be released at the ending to cause another human rebellion and the Lord will quickly extinguish the rebels

Satan will then be destroyed

Next ..... all of the spirits of the unbelieving human dead from the beginning of human creation will face the second death of their spirits

..... then the Lord's eternal kingdom will begin

Searcher1
Jan 21st 2015, 06:29 PM
Neither do I. I believe it's a reference to the church.

If the two witnesses are the whole church, those living at the time, then why are they all in one city. Will all Christians make the journey to this Great city and be killed there and all these bodies, which would be around a billion in number, (There are 2.5 billion Christians in the world today so I am being very constrictive to say a billion.) will lay in the streets there for 3 and half days? They wouldn't even fit. It is more logical to say these are two people. They are preaching the gospel of Jesus Messiah to the people of the city and to the whole world via, TV's, smart phones, etc. Of course every person in the whole world does not have to see them, but "the world" the majority, will.

I also believe the Great City is Jerusalem and the Harlot city of Rev 17. And I can prove it through the very same scripture in Rev 17. And yes the woman which John saw is a city and the woman at the same time.

God bless
In Him
Norma

petrobb
Jan 21st 2015, 06:33 PM
Revelation does have a narrative.

It depicts Christ preparing His church for the future and then giving a picture of their near and far future in a series of visions which each lead up to the last judgment portrayed in different ways.

Vision 1 rev 6 a survey of the whole of church history up to the final judgment.

vision 2 rev 7-11 another survey of the whole of church history depicting the true Israel (Christ's church) their continuing tribulation through the ages and the judgments which will follow

vision 3 rev 12-14 church history from the birth of Christ to the final judgment

vision 4 rev 15-16 church history leading to the final judgment

vision 5 rev 17-19 church history leading to the final judgment

vision 6 rev 20 church history to the final judgment

vision 7 rev 21-22 the church's future





and so on

there are no grounds (apart from doctrinal prejudice) for suggesting that it all refers to the final days of the age.

Aijalon
Jan 21st 2015, 06:33 PM
I believe there's at least a few problems with this article.
It was a great article, but yes, there are few issues. I much thank mark for writing it!


One problem is that Jesus was not crucified in Jerusalem. I know this is hard for some people to accept. It's very easy to assume He was crucified within the city, but He was not. I have scriptural evidence to back up my claim, in case anyone thinks I'm making this up.
A minor technical point that has little significance. The woman IS the city. The fact of this means that Jesus was crucified BY a woman. His people did crucify him.


So, while I agree that the great city of Rev 11:8 is the same great city as mystery Babylon the great city of Rev 11:8 is not earthly first century Jerusalem. And, while I agree that it is portrayed as a counterpart to the new Jerusalem, I believe it is portrayed as a spiritual counterpart, not an earthly counterpart to the heavenly city. It has descriptions given to it that do not describe first century earthly Jerusalem, such as it reigning over the kings of the earth and it sitting upon many waters which represent multitudes of people throughout the earth (Rev 17:1,15,18).
Correct. It is not a literal city in any respect. Therefore physical Jerusalem cannot be related as fulfillment of Matt 22. The multitudes of people are a critical aspect of this woman. The woman is a religion living in a form of covenant relationship with God. The fact of the matter is that God signed his covenant in blood for any who would believe, and therefore the new covenant is the only one that applies to "multitude". In fact, it applies to all people.

How does it apply? Accept this covenant, live forever. Reject it, die forever.

When the Harlot says "I am no widow", it means that she rejects Christ's sacrificial blood, and the New Covenant. She is the world at large (pagan) which says that Christ is not the ONLY WAY to everlasting life. (Orthodox Judaism is included in this multitude)


Another problem I have with the article is that it portrays Matthew 22:1-10 as if it was fulfilled in 70 AD. No. That parable is speaking about the spreading of the gospel starting with the Jews and then to the Gentiles. Guess what? The gospel is still being spread around the world. Guests are still being invited to the wedding. The wedding is not over. The marriage has not yet been fully consummated. Likewise, Rev 19:1-7 is not yet fulfilled for the same reason.
Correct. The KINGDOM is like the whole of the parable, which includes the absence of the Bridegroom (the distant country). Therefore 70 AD does not fulfill the coming of the kingdom, which can only take place in the presence of the Bridegroom (the invisible kingdom will become visible)


So, while it can't be denied that first century earthly Jerusalem resembles mystery Babylon I don't see that earthly Jerusalem fully satisfies the description of mystery Babylon. I believe all the false religions of the world oppose the new Jerusalem, which is the bride of the Lamb. That's us, the church. That's where we reside spiritually. We are spiritually part of the heavenly Jerusalem. The heavenly Jerusalem above is the mother of us all (Gal 4:26). We have already entered it spiritually (Heb 12:22) even though it will come down from heaven to the new earth in the future.

2And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
3For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

Was first century earthly Jerusalem the hold of EVERY foul spirit? Did ALL nations drink the wine of the wrath of her fornication? How so? And how exactly did the merchants of the earth wax rich through the abundance of her delicacies? Again, there are parts of the description of Babylon that resemble earthly 1st century earthly Jerusalem, but also parts that don't seem to describe that city at all.

Good points. The article leans toward preterism, and as such, must be refuted on the whole even if some of it is very well said in regards to Galatians.


A

Straightshot
Jan 21st 2015, 07:26 PM
Agree with the above poster related to the preteristic view

This view is totally out of the scope of biblical prophecy [extra-biblical]

All of Revelation's presentation is an extension of the views of the bible prophets related to the end of this present age still pending

All must agree and they do 100%

The preterist view has to manipulate literal and future prophecy into metaphor and allegory in order to force fit the dogma

ewq1938
Jan 22nd 2015, 12:32 AM
It should be noted that, like the two women of Galatians, the two women of Revelation are also two wives. It is obvious that the bride is a wife, as she becomes married (Rev. 21:9). It is easy to miss that the harlot is also a wife (cf. Ezek. 16:32), a widowed wife. Unfaithful Israel went from being a queen to a widow when she had her King killed (Rev. 18:7; cf. Matt 21:5).

Enjoying the read so far but I believe there is an error here. Rev 18:7 states she is a queen and no widow. I believe she is married to satan while New Jerusalem is married to God. I think that comparison makes the most sense. Besides, Israel was divorced from God long before Christ was killed. He was never accepted as their king thus never married unfaithful Israel.



Revelation 17-19 is showing, the AD 70 burning of unfaithful Jerusalem and her Temple at the end of the old covenant age. Moses was told that this would happen in the “latter days”

Impossible. Jerusalem never ruled over the kings of the Earth as it is written concerning Babylon. Also, Rev 19 shows Christ and his angelic army returning to slaughter his enemies. That hasn't happened yet.

Rev 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.
Rev 18:22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;
Rev 18:23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.


In addition, Jerusalem still stands yet when Babylon is destroyed, she is gone forever.

ewq1938
Jan 22nd 2015, 12:56 AM
How could Jerusalem have been a place where people from all over the world could view the dead bodies of the two witnesses?

While I am on your side doctrinally we also need to set weak arguments aside. I agree with the others that Christ being killed outside the city doesn't affect the text and here it just doesn't say the whole world saw the bodies. It only says people who dwelled on the Earth did, and in reverse the prophets tormented people on the Earth, not the whole population of the Earth.

I believe there are more important errors that would disprove the theory.

Aijalon
Jan 22nd 2015, 01:00 AM
Enjoying the read so far but I believe there is an error here. Rev 18:7 states she is a queen and no widow. I believe she is married to satan while New Jerusalem is married to God. I think that comparison makes the most sense. Besides, Israel was divorced from God long before Christ was killed. He was never accepted as their king thus never married unfaithful Israel.
Great point. It is probably worth noting too, that this symbolic woman can be counted married by the token of betrothal. The marriage of the Lamb is in his coming to a pure bride. The impure whore is betrothed to satan, the woman in the wilderness (her sister) is betrothed to Christ. Perhaps betrothal and marriage are a minor distinction, I am only building on your point.

I also would not say that Israel was ever divorced from God, or in other words, God did not ever sign and deliver a certificate of divorce. Though he will indeed give her to her lovers so that they will abuse her (like the whoring woman of Bethlehem killed in Gibeah) he will never consider her divorced. She is his wife, and he is never unfaithful to her.

By Law, she cannot marry him again, if she is divorced. The issue about betrothal is important here. The virginity of the bride is preserved in a secret respect - which is that the bride is a dual nature. She is a whore who is killed, and she is a persecuted virgin woman.... the allegory is very rich. The virginity is expressed in that the males of the 144,000 Israelites are virgins who are pure by not worshipping idols. Whoredom is symbolic idolatry..... whoring with other gods..... . Once God casts out the woman onto the city streets to be abused and killed, what is left of her body is destroyed, her lovers killed (Gibeah-ites) leaving behind a small remnant of virgins (allegorically expressed by the virgin daughters of Shiloh and of Jabesh Gilead)

ewq1938
Jan 22nd 2015, 01:44 AM
I also would not say that Israel was ever divorced from God, or in other words, God did not ever sign and deliver a certificate of divorce.

Jer 3:6 The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot.
Jer 3:7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.
Jer 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Straightshot
Jan 22nd 2015, 02:21 AM
Comment

The Lord is not finished with His nation of Israel ..... this ruse has no truth, is not supported by all related scripture, and the evidence is even reality today ..... many still refuse to believe what is right in front of their face as the world heads for the time of the end of this present age with rapid acceleration

Get this straight .... the professing church is not Israel as most of the movements of professing Christianity have and still do teach

Wake up .... do not get caught kicking against the Lord's purposes for his national people of Israel

Aijalon
Jan 24th 2015, 04:44 AM
Jer 3:6 The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot.
Jer 3:7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.
Jer 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

But did God divorce Judah also? Did he divorce "the daughter of Zion". No, never.

Israel's ten tribes were divorced, true. They had their right to a separate kingdom revoked, forever. The trouble though, is that God reuinited the covenant bond between Israel/Judah in Ezekiel's symbolic stick-joining. For covenant purposes, they were one people when they returned from Babylon.

ewq1938
Jan 24th 2015, 04:57 AM
But did God divorce Judah also? Did he divorce "the daughter of Zion". No, never.

Yes.

Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jeremiah 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:


"which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them"

this covenant is the marriage covenant which both broke.





Jeremiah 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

put her away
7971

07971 shalach {shaw-lakh'}

a primitive root; TWOT - 2394; v

AV - send 566, go 73, (send, put,...) forth 54, send away 48, lay 14,
send out 12, put 10, put away 7, cast out 7, stretch out 5,
cast 5, set 5, put out 4, depart 4, soweth 3, loose 3, misc 22; 847

1) to send, send away, let go, stretch out
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to send
1a2) to stretch out, extend, direct
1a3) to send away
1a4) to let loose
1b) (Niphal) to be sent
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to send off or away or out or forth, dismiss, give over, cast out
1c2) to let go, set free
1c3) to shoot forth (of branches)
1c4) to let down
1c5) to shoot
1d) (Pual) to be sent off, be put away, be divorced, be impelled
1e) (Hiphil) to send






Zechariah 10:6 And I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph, and I will bring them again to place them; for I have mercy upon them: and they shall be as though I had not cast them off: for I am the LORD their God, and will hear them.




cast ...off
2186

02186 zanach {zaw-nakh'}

a primitive root meaning to push aside; TWOT - 564; v

AV - cast...off 17, cast away 1, turn...away 1, removed...far off; 20

1) to cast off, reject, spurn
1a) (Qal) to reject
1b) (Hiphil) to forcefully reject someone
2) to stink, emit stench, become odious
2a) (Hiphil) stink (perfect)



This "casting off" is the same reference of divorcing as in "putting away" a wife found in Jeremiah 3:8. Judah was also "cast off" just as Israel had been "put away", both for adultery. Since Judah was even the greater whore, being cast off sounds more angry than being put away.


Mal_2:11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.

Here Judah is presented as a male who has married the daughter of a false god. Judah is no longer married to God.





Israel's ten tribes were divorced, true.

And it is also written Judah was even worse. God married sisters, both committed adultery and were divorced. They can only marry God again via Jesus Christ as all can if they accept Christ.

Aijalon
Jan 26th 2015, 03:45 AM
Yes, Judah was worse. Never the less.... God promised David a permanent offspring on the throne, not just a spiritual offspring. Jesus now holds all authority in Judah, and he is the righteous branch. I seriously think your claim of Judah's divorce is tenuous. Divorce is a technical legal proceeding, and permanent. God would do no such thing.

FIrst your Malachi passage.

It seems that Malachi is giving a serious charge to the generation of Hebrews under his care: It is not a multi-generational accusation by God on the whole tribe or the WHOLE covenant. For that matter, the new covenant does not ABOLISH the old, it simply makes the old so inferior as to be obsolete, nearly an incovenience really. BUt on the technical merits of the promises, Judah's covenant through Jacob and Abraham... cannot ever be cancelled.

The whole chapter Malachi 2.



1And now, to you [is] this charge, O priests, 2If ye hearken not, and if ye lay [it] not to heart, To give honour to My name, said Jehovah of Hosts, I have sent against you the curse, And I have cursed your blessings, Yea, I have also cursed it, Because ye are not laying [it] to heart. 3Lo, I am pushing away before you the seed, And have scattered dung before your faces, Dung of your festivals, And it hath taken you away with it. 4And ye have known that I have sent unto you this charge, For My covenant being with Levi, Said Jehovah of Hosts. 5My covenant hath been with him of life and of peace, And I make them to him a fear, and he doth fear Me, And because of My name he hath been affrighted. 6The law of truth hath been in his mouth, And perverseness hath not been found in his lips, In peace and in uprightness he walked with Me, And many he brought back from iniquity. 7For the lips of a priest preserve knowledge, And law they do seek from his mouth, For a messenger of Jehovah of Hosts he [is]. 8And ye, ye have turned from the way, Ye have caused many to stumble in the law, Ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, Said Jehovah of Hosts. 9And I also, I have made you despised and low before all the people, Because ye are not keeping My ways, And are accepting persons in the law.

10Have we not all one father? Hath not our God prepared us? Wherefore do we deal treacherously, Each against his brother, To pollute the covenant of our fathers? 11Dealt treacherously hath Judah, And abomination hath been done in Israel, and in Jerusalem, For polluted hath Judah the holy thing of Jehovah, That He hath loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. 12Cut off doth Jehovah the man who doth it, Tempter and tempted — from the tents of Jacob, Even he who is bringing nigh a present to Jehovah of Hosts.

13And this a second time ye do, Covering with tears the altar of Jehovah, With weeping and groaning, Because there is no more turning unto the present, Or receiving of a pleasing thing from your hand. 14And ye have said, ‘Wherefore?’ Because Jehovah hath testified between thee And the wife of thy youth, That thou hast dealt treacherously against her, And she thy companion, and thy covenant-wife. 15And He did not make one [only], And He hath the remnant of the Spirit. And what [is] the one [alone]! He is seeking a godly seed. And ye have been watchful over your spirit, And with the wife of thy youth, None doth deal treacherously. 16For [I] hate sending away, said Jehovah, God of Israel, And He [who] hath covered violence with his clothing, said Jehovah of Hosts, And ye have been watchful over your spirit, And ye do not deal treacherously.

17Ye have wearied Jehovah with your words, And ye have said: ‘In what have we wearied Him?’ In your saying: ‘Every evil-doer [is] good in the eyes of Jehovah, And in them He is delighting,’ Or, ‘Where [is] the God of judgment?’

ewq1938
Jan 26th 2015, 03:59 AM
Yes, Judah was worse. Never the less.... God promised David a permanent offspring on the throne, not just a spiritual offspring.

Well Jesus fulfills that.



Jesus now holds all authority in Judah, and he is the righteous branch. I seriously think your claim of Judah's divorce is tenuous. Divorce is a technical legal proceeding, and permanent. God would do no such thing.

Of course he would. It is written those that bear no fruit shall be removed and burned. That applies to anyone not in Christ, Judah or not. That is naturally even more than a mere divorce.




FIrst your Malachi passage.

It seems that Malachi is giving a serious charge to the generation of Hebrews under his care: It is not a multi-generational accusation by God on the whole tribe or the WHOLE covenant. For that matter, the new covenant does not ABOLISH the old, it simply makes the old so inferior as to be obsolete, nearly an incovenience really.

No, it even decays and vanishes:

Heb_8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.




BUt on the technical merits of the promises, Judah's covenant through Jacob and Abraham... cannot ever be cancelled.

Sure it can. The covenant was broken.


Zechariah 11:4 Thus saith the LORD my God; Feed the flock of the slaughter;
Zechariah 11:5 Whose possessors slay them, and hold themselves not guilty: and they that sell them say, Blessed be the LORD; for I am rich: and their own shepherds pity them not.
Zechariah 11:6 For I will no more pity the inhabitants of the land, saith the LORD: but, lo, I will deliver the men every one into his neighbour's hand, and into the hand of his king: and they shall smite the land, and out of their hand I will not deliver them.
Zechariah 11:7 And I will feed the flock of slaughter, even you, O poor of the flock. And I took unto me two staves; the one I called Beauty, and the other I called Bands; and I fed the flock.
Zechariah 11:8 Three shepherds also I cut off in one month; and my soul lothed them, and their soul also abhorred me.
Zechariah 11:9 Then said I, I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another.
Zechariah 11:10 And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.
Zechariah 11:11 And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD.



Israel and Judah committed Adultery and God divorced them ending the covenant he had with them.


Zechariah 11:12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.
Zechariah 11:13 And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.
Zechariah 11:14 Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.



Furthermore he broke the bond between them as well!





Clarke

Zec 11:10 -
I took my staff - Beauty, and cut it asunder - And thus I showed that I determined no longer to preserve them in their free and glorious state. And thus I brake my covenant with them, which they had broken on their part already.


Gill


that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people; not the covenant of works, that was made with all mankind in Adam; that was broke, not by the Lord, but by man; and was broke before the Gospel was published; nor the covenant of grace, for this was not made with all the people, nor can it be broken; but the Mosaic economy, the Sinai covenant, called the old covenant, which gradually vanished away: it was of right abolished at the death of Christ


I've seen this type of discussion and I see no reason to go back and forth on it. I believe God divorced his former people and now his Son will marry a new people made of all peoples.