Jesus ties Babylon the great to the Jerusalem of the first century

[divaD]

Actually Rev 11:8 ties together with Rev 18:21

11:8
⁸ Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city—which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified

18:21Then a mighty angel picked up a boulder the size of a large millstone and threw it into the sea, and said:

With such violence
the great city of Babylon will be thrown down,
never to be found again.

They are both called "the great city" there can be many great cities but there can only be one "the great city"

Besides all this what really matters is that Jesus told the first century Jews that they killed the prophets and that they were going to persecute the church and they did then Jesus said that the blood of all of the prophets and saints would fall upon them and it did in 70AD.

Then we read in Revelation 18 and we see that the angle told John that Babylon the great also persecuted the prophets and the saints and that the exact same wrath of all killed on the earth would come upon her and it did. This can only happened to one and the same people

So people can deny this all they want but this was the very words right out of Jesus' mouth

Revelation 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.


Revelation 21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,


If we look at it like this I can maybe see that great city Babylon possibly meaning Jerusalem. But not Jerusalem in the first century, nor Jerusalem in the literal sense, as in a literal city in the middle east. To me it only stands to reason that the old Jerusalem way of being that got corrupted over time has to be entirely done away with first before there can be a new one in it's place. Think about it for a minute, look what Revelation 18:21 states...that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

Doing an exact phrase search in the KJV for 'great city', the next and last time a great city is mentioned after Revelation 18:21 is Revelation 21:10. But if Revelation 18:21 has already been fulfilled 2000 years ago according to your interpretation, why would there be a gap of 2000 plus years until Revelation 21:10 is initially fulfilled?

[marty fox]

Revelation 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.


Revelation 21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,


If we look at it like this I can maybe see that great city Babylon possibly meaning Jerusalem. But not Jerusalem in the first century, nor Jerusalem in the literal sense, as in a literal city in the middle east. To me it only stands to reason that the old Jerusalem way of being that got corrupted over time has to be entirely done away with first before there can be a new one in it's place. Think about it for a minute, look what Revelation 18:21 states...that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

Doing an exact phrase search in the KJV for 'great city', the next and last time a great city is mentioned after Revelation 18:21 is Revelation 21:10. But if Revelation 18:21 has already been fulfilled 2000 years ago according to your interpretation, why would there be a gap of 2000 plus years until Revelation 21:10 is initially fulfilled?

Well 2000 years as of now but time can go on much longer. But I agree with you in a way because it’s not about a literal city as in Jerusalem because Jesus in the verse below describes Jerusalem as the people of Jerusalem at that time

Matthew 23:37-38
³⁷ “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. ³⁸ Look, your house is left to you desolate.

In this same way the heavenly Jerusalem isn’t a literal city but the bride of Christ the church see the verses below in revelation 21

² I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bridebeautifully dressed for her husband.

⁹ One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” ¹⁰ And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God.

Thus Revelation is a transition from the earthly Jerusalem to the heavenly Jerusalem and the heavenly Jerusalem is still being built and will come down when she is finished

Revelation is about God issuing earthly Jerusalem a certificate of divorce for being a prostitute to the nations and then marring heavenly Jerusalem the bride the church

This explains how Ezekiel chapter 16 reveals who the mystery is of Revelation chapter 18 Babylon the great

[randyk]

Doesn't Revelation 19 tell us when He fights anyone with the sword of His mouth?

Revelation 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Revelation 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

Do you, like Marty, think these events recorded in Rev 19 have already happened in some sense or are maybe ongoing in some sense?

I agree with Marty that in some sense Jesus indicated he was "coming in judgment" in 70 AD. But I can't say all that Marty believes--he's a Partial Preterist, and I am not.

Jesus was asked, in a sense, to compare his eschatological Coming with the event he was predicting to happen in 70 AD, the destruction of the temple. The Disciples did not understand the relationship between the 2 events. They thought Jesus as Messiah had come to save Israel. And that was to be an eschatological deliverance for the nation, as indicated by the Prophets.

But if the temple was to be destroyed, and Israel scattered, how was he, as Messiah, intending to bring about the promised eschatological salvation? Jesus was answering this question.

Jesus' answer was that judgment was coming to Israel, the "house of God," before coming to the rest of the nations, who had not even been evangelized yet. So Jesus had come to bring judgment to Israel, well before her eschatological salvation. He was coming in 70 AD to destroy the temple, symbol of the failed covenant of Law. It would make way for his promised New Covenant with Israel, promised to take place at the end of the age.

For now, the New Covenant works for only a remnant of Israel, and for other Gentile nations, who now have been given their opportunity, just as Israel had. So we see the same cycle going on with former Christian nations that already happened to Israel, formerly a nation of God.

In saying he was coming in judgment in his generation, ie in 70 AD, he was *not* saying this would fulfill the promised eschatological salvation of national Israel. It was to be but the beginning of an age-long period of punishment for national Israel, because the majority would not repent and come to Christ.

God would endure their sins for the sake of the remnant that has been turning to Christ. In the end, the nation will experience final judgment, and then the nation would be converted to Christ and saved. The eschatological Coming remains to take place in the future, and will take place on the last day of the age.

You will find that God "comes" in judgment in many historical acts in the books of the Prophets. He does not just "come" in the eschatological judgment. Neither does Christ only return in the eschatological judgment. He comes any time in history in which he brings judgment to nations.

Neither does "the sword of his mouth" have a particular application only to one historical period of judgment. This phrase represents God's word of judgment, which speaks throughout history, whenever God brings judgment upon a nation. Christ brought his word of judgment to the Nicolaitans in the Early Church, and he will bring the word of judgment upon the world in the last days, at the end of the age.

The "sword of his mouth" simply represents the word of Christ, which comes out of Christ's mouth and has the effect of commanding a sword of judgment. The "sword" is an OT symbol of a weapon bringing divine judgment.

[ForHisglory]

Israel wasn't protected around 70AD she was protected from the cross until the mid 60's of the first century.
Lets think about this the woman is left in the wilderness for a set time in rev 12 and we don't hear anymore about her. But then we find a woman in the wilderness in Rev 17.

Israel was NOT protected from 30 AD to 66 AD, moreover the SPECIFICATION in Rev 12 is for a period of 1260 Days which would be from the mid 60s AD to 70 AD, but Israel was NOT protected DURING that time, instead it was full of internal fighting and the Romans regaining power starting in Galilee.
Just because a Woman is in a wilderness does NOT mean it is the SAME Woman.
The Wilderness is the place Israel went on Exodus whilst travelling to the Promised Land.
The picture in Rev 12 is the SAME as that, for Israel was nourished by God as Deuteronomy 8 notes and Jesus quoted. This is not about a Whore, but about someone heading in the direction that God wants.
The picture in Rev 17 is the opposite though, for that Whore makes the Wilderness her HOME.
It is a Tale of Two Women - one a Whore and the other a Bride.
Now God does take the broken Woman and make her whole, but in Rev 17 & 18 this is a Woman who rebels against God and refuses to be whole.

[ForHisglory]

I very much disagree with your statements here, glory. Although I do think the book of Revelation was written post-70 AD, I do think that belief in some form of revelation of the Son of Man in 70 AD is *not* necessarily either a Preterist or PP position! Christ was, I think, describing his appearance in the form of divine judgment, and not as an eschatological appearance. He was describing judgment in general times in both times in history, in 70 AD against the Jewish People and at the end of the age, to terminate the period of Jewish punishment.

Preterist means that you believe something has happened in the past.
Therefore ANYTHING I believe has happened in the past IS a Preterist view.
We all have Preterist ideas, even if they are only about Jesus.
However there is a whole range in the spectrum of Preterism.
Full Preterism sees EVERYTHING as in the past being fulfilled.
A Partial Preterist view sees therefore not everything, but only some things. I am therefore a Partial Preterist and have no issues with that.
However within the spectrum you have some who have the majority of prophecy fulfilled in the past, like Marty.
Some, like yourself, who seem to be slightly more Preterist, such as having most of the OD in the past and your acceptance of Jesus appearing in divine judgement.
Then myself, who does NOT see most of the OD in the past, but I do see that a number of things were.
Then those we would call Futurists because they see most of the OD in the future, who make the SAME error as yourself that the OD only speaks of ONE event, but recognise that what Matthew describes CANNOT be the past.

We can see that clearly in John's use of similar language here:
Rev 2.¹⁵ Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. ¹⁶ Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
This was not to be fulfilled at the end of the age, in an eschatological Coming. Rather, it was a form of Jesus' Coming in judgment in the days of the Nicolaitans in the Early Church.

And neither was it an appearance UNLIKE what is stated in the OD.

We see the same thing in Luke 17, where Jesus describes his Revelation during the time when Jews would come down from their rooftops and seek to escape the Roman judgment in 70 AD. Some would be taken into exile, and others would be left to tend to the fields for the Romans. "Some will be taken, and some will be left."

Nope, Luke 17 is 100% future and NOT about 70 AD in anyway. This is clear from the TWO facts that Luke separates it from the rest of the OD - try adding it into Luke 21 and you will see that Luke recognises TWO events - and that it matches Matthew's description which is also clearly a FUTURE event. Add to this the FACT that in 70 AD it was NOT possible to flee and we did NOT have an appearance of Jesus in 66 AD which is when Luke 21 has the time to flee as being (even with your non-appearance appearance, which you have as judgement and therefore in 70 AD).

[divaD]

I agree with Marty that in some sense Jesus indicated he was "coming in judgment" in 70 AD. But I can't say all that Marty believes--he's a Partial Preterist, and I am not.

Jesus was asked, in a sense, to compare his eschatological Coming with the event he was predicting to happen in 70 AD, the destruction of the temple. The Disciples did not understand the relationship between the 2 events. They thought Jesus as Messiah had come to save Israel. And that was to be an eschatological deliverance for the nation, as indicated by the Prophets.

But if the temple was to be destroyed, and Israel scattered, how was he, as Messiah, intending to bring about the promised eschatological salvation? Jesus was answering this question.

Jesus' answer was that judgment was coming to Israel, the "house of God," before coming to the rest of the nations, who had not even been evangelized yet. So Jesus had come to bring judgment to Israel, well before her eschatological salvation. He was coming in 70 AD to destroy the temple, symbol of the failed covenant of Law. It would make way for his promised New Covenant with Israel, promised to take place at the end of the age.

For now, the New Covenant works for only a remnant of Israel, and for other Gentile nations, who now have been given their opportunity, just as Israel had. So we see the same cycle going on with former Christian nations that already happened to Israel, formerly a nation of God.

In saying he was coming in judgment in his generation, ie in 70 AD, he was *not* saying this would fulfill the promised eschatological salvation of national Israel. It was to be but the beginning of an age-long period of punishment for national Israel, because the majority would not repent and come to Christ.

God would endure their sins for the sake of the remnant that has been turning to Christ. In the end, the nation will experience final judgment, and then the nation would be converted to Christ and saved. The eschatological Coming remains to take place in the future, and will take place on the last day of the age.

You will find that God "comes" in judgment in many historical acts in the books of the Prophets. He does not just "come" in the eschatological judgment. Neither does Christ only return in the eschatological judgment. He comes any time in history in which he brings judgment to nations.

Neither does "the sword of his mouth" have a particular application only to one historical period of judgment. This phrase represents God's word of judgment, which speaks throughout history, whenever God brings judgment upon a nation. Christ brought his word of judgment to the Nicolaitans in the Early Church, and he will bring the word of judgment upon the world in the last days, at the end of the age.

The "sword of his mouth" simply represents the word of Christ, which comes out of Christ's mouth and has the effect of commanding a sword of judgment. The "sword" is an OT symbol of a weapon bringing divine judgment.

If Revelation was written post 70 AD, would it not be ludicrous for some of the prophesied events to be referring to a period of time before and up to 70 AD? Do not prophecies provide warnings of what might be coming? No one after 70 AD in the first century would need to be warned about events that took place before they were even made aware of them, this still assuming Revelation was written post 70 AD. What good would that do at that point? This is why, those, such as Marty, argue for an early writing of Revelation, in order to make their theories somehow doable.

But even if Revelation was written prior to 70 AD, that still doesn't prove their theories correct. There are numerous prophecies recorded in the OT that never came to pass during the lifetimes of those that heard them or read about them at the time. An example, prophecies concerning Christ's first advent. Up until this point, even though I'm addressing you here, I'm probably speaking more to Marty here than you, since you might even somewhat agree with some of this for all I know, and that I doubt Marty does.

As to your last paragraph, I grasp how you are looking at it, yet I'm looking at it differently, in this particular case. There are clues that show what we are discussing in Revelation 2:16, that this involves the 2nd coming.

Revelation 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Let's start with verse 17...To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it. How could that have already been fulfilled in the first century and is not instead meaning what one is rewarded with after Christ has bodily returned(the 2nd coming)?

In verse 16 it states...or else I will come unto thee quickly. When does Revelation indicate that Christ comes quickly?

Revelation 3:11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

Revelation 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

Revelation 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

Revelation 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.


Christ never returned in the first century. Why would anyone then apply any of the comings listed above, to any events that occurred in the first century? If none of those coming quickly involve any events in the first century, nor anything up to the present time we are living in, why would the coming quickly in Revelation 2:16 not follow the same pattern, but instead is meaning coming in another sense, and not a coming quickly in a bodily sense, like Revelation 3:11, Revelation 22:7, and Revelation 22:20, are obviously meaning?

[randyk]

If Revelation was written post 70 AD, would it not be ludicrous for some of the prophesied events to be referring to a period of time before and up to 70 AD? Do not prophecies provide warnings of what might be coming?

Yes, that's true. That's only one reason I'm not a Partial Preterist, because I think that much of the book of Revelation remains to be fulfilled in the future, and not in 70 AD, nor in the Early Church. The 70 AD event likely already passed by the time John received this revelation. I don't really know, but even if it was written before 70 AD, I think most of the book refers to eschatological fulfillments in the last 3.5 years of the age.

As to your last paragraph, I grasp how you are looking at it, yet I'm looking at it differently, in this particular case. There are clues that show what we are discussing in Revelation 2:16, that this involves the 2nd coming.

Yes, I think I know what you're saying, that the Nicolaitan judgment somehow connects with the eschatological 2nd Coming, and not with an historical fulfillment in the Early Church? That's a possible interpretation--I just don't happen to agree with it.

Revelation 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Let's start with verse 17...To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it. How could that have already been fulfilled in the first century and is not instead meaning what one is rewarded with after Christ has bodily returned(the 2nd coming)?

Yes, that's true. The "reward" part of the passage obviously is fulfilled at the 2nd Coming. But I believe this has little to do with the "judgment" of the Nicolaitans, which I believe took place in history. That's why I think they're gone from history.

In verse 16 it states...or else I will come unto thee quickly. When does Revelation indicate that Christ comes quickly?
Revelation 3:11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
Revelation 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.
Revelation 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
Revelation 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Again, Jesus made the nature of judgment to be "quick" and sudden. The fact it was "sudden" in the Early Church does not mean it connects with an eschatological judgment, which is also "sudden." The judgment took place in history, but ultimately reward takes place at Christ's 2nd Coming. Both historical and eschatological judgments were to be, in a sense, a "sudden coming" of Christ in judgment.

Christ never returned in the first century. Why would anyone then apply any of the comings listed above, to any events that occurred in the first century? If none of those coming quickly involve any events in the first century, nor anything up to the present time we are living in, why would the coming quickly in Revelation 2:16 not follow the same pattern, but instead is meaning coming in another sense, and not a coming quickly in a bodily sense, like Revelation 3:11, Revelation 22:7, and Revelation 22:20, are obviously meaning?

I believe we have to separate an historical "coming in judgment" from an eschatological "coming in judgment." In both cases, Christ is depicted as "coming to judge." In the same way, the OT Prophets painted God as "coming in judgment," rendering historical judgments, whether against backslidden Israel or against Israel's enemies. This was the natural way of depicting Christ's coming in judgment, as historical events, culminating in an eschatological event.

As I see it, this is how Jesus described it when asked by his Disciples, who had the same kind of confusion we're talking about. Jesus, in his Olivet Discourse, separated the concept of his historical coming in judgment from his eschatological coming in judgment. The book of Revelation largely talks about the eschatological coming in judgment.

[marty fox]

Israel was NOT protected from 30 AD to 66 AD, moreover the SPECIFICATION in Rev 12 is for a period of 1260 Days which would be from the mid 60s AD to 70 AD, but Israel was NOT protected DURING that time, instead it was full of internal fighting and the Romans regaining power starting in Galilee.
Just because a Woman is in a wilderness does NOT mean it is the SAME Woman.
The Wilderness is the place Israel went on Exodus whilst travelling to the Promised Land.
The picture in Rev 12 is the SAME as that, for Israel was nourished by God as Deuteronomy 8 notes and Jesus quoted. This is not about a Whore, but about someone heading in the direction that God wants.
The picture in Rev 17 is the opposite though, for that Whore makes the Wilderness her HOME.
It is a Tale of Two Women - one a Whore and the other a Bride.
Now God does take the broken Woman and make her whole, but in Rev 17 & 18 this is a Woman who rebels against God and refuses to be whole.

When I said Israel was protected I meant from destruction


Let’s look at this we have a woman who is protected in the wilderness for a time times and half a time and then you think that that women is never mentioned again.

Then five chapters later we find another woman in the wilderness after the time times and half a time but you don’t think that they have anything to do with each other?

One plus one equals two.

What exactly does each wilderness mean to you then?

What do you think happened to the woman after the time times and half a time?

Revelation 17 mentions nothing of the woman making the wilderness her home.

[ForHisglory]

When I said Israel was protected I meant from destruction
Let’s look at this we have a woman who is protected in the wilderness for a time times and half a time and then you think that that women is never mentioned again.
Then five chapters later we find another woman in the wilderness after the time times and half a time but you don’t think that they have anything to do with each other?
One plus one equals two.
What exactly does each wilderness mean to you then?
What do you think happened to the woman after the time times and half a time?
Revelation 17 mentions nothing of the woman making the wilderness her home.

Can you NOT have TWO Women in the wilderness? Was NOT there Hagar and Sarah?
The Wilderness is NOT the place of blessing, but a place of struggle.
However for those in a relationship with God it is merely a place in the way to the Promised Land, but it is NOT the place to inhabit.
The Woman in Rev 17 however makes the Wilderness her home, which is a haunt for wild BEASTS.
You are taking two fruit and saying they are BOTH apples, but one is a banana!

[ForHisglory]

Just to add:
Rev 16:4 The third angel poured out his bowl into the rivers and the springs of water, and they became blood.
Rev 16:5 And I heard the angel in charge of the waters say, “Just are you, O Holy One, who is and who was, for you brought these judgments.
Rev 16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and you have given them blood to drink. It is what they deserve!”

Notice that the rivers and springs turn to blood. Did this happen before 70 AD?
Notice who is being charged with having shed the blood of the saints and prophets. It is NOT Jerusalem here.

[marty fox]

Can you NOT have TWO Women in the wilderness? Was NOT there Hagar and Sarah?
The Wilderness is NOT the place of blessing, but a place of struggle.
However for those in a relationship with God it is merely a place in the way to the Promised Land, but it is NOT the place to inhabit.
The Woman in Rev 17 however makes the Wilderness her home, which is a haunt for wild BEASTS.
You are taking two fruit and saying they are BOTH apples, but one is a banana!

So What do you think happened to the woman after the time times and half a time?

And again Revelation 17 mentions nothing of the woman making the wilderness her home it’s just we’re she is found

[marty fox]

Just to add:
Rev 16:4 The third angel poured out his bowl into the rivers and the springs of water, and they became blood.
Rev 16:5 And I heard the angel in charge of the waters say, “Just are you, O Holy One, who is and who was, for you brought these judgments.
Rev 16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and you have given them blood to drink. It is what they deserve!”

Notice that the rivers and springs turn to blood. Did this happen before 70 AD?
Notice who is being charged with having shed the blood of the saints and prophets. It is NOT Jerusalem here.

I did believe the water turning to blood is literal but just a sign of judgement

Its Babylon the great so I believe that it is Jerusalem

[ewq1938]

Actually Rev 11:8 ties together with Rev 18:21

11:8
⁸ Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city—which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified

18:21Then a mighty angel picked up a boulder the size of a large millstone and threw it into the sea, and said:

With such violence
the great city of Babylon will be thrown down,
never to be found again.

They are both called "the great city" there can be many great cities but there can only be one "the great city"

Rev_21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,


That would be awkward since New Jerusalem is also called a great city. Apparently it's a fact that more than one city can be called "great".

The truth is there are three different great cities: Jerusalem, Babylon, New Jerusalem. Jerusalem and Babylon have killed prophets but they aren't the same city.

[ewq1938]

Only Israel killed both the saints and the prophets

Don't forget Rome. She killed a lot also.

[ewq1938]

I don't agree with Glory's eschatology in many ways, so I'm not agreeing with her.

FHG stated that he is male awhile ago.