Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"What is the Narrative of the book of Revelation?"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Discussion "What is the Narrative of the book of Revelation?"

    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.
    Last edited by markedward; Sep 8th 2008, 03:14 PM.
    To This Day

  • #2
    Apparently, the one who wrote the article is Amillennial, since it makes many asumptions concerning Jerusalem that amils tend to believe.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by markedward View Post
      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

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by John146 View Post
        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.
        To This Day

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by markedward View Post
          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 Jerusalem
          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.

          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

          Comment


          • #6
            [QUOTE=John146;1781897]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.

            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).
            To This Day

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by markedward View Post
              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 crucified
              It's also called a woman several times. So, using your logic, it must be both a literal city and a literal woman.

              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"?

              Comment


              • #8
                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.
                To This Day

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by markedward View Post
                  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".


                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by John146 View Post
                    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.
                    To This Day

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by markedward View Post
                      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?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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
                        "People do not drift toward holiness. Apart from grace-driven effort, people do not gravitate toward godliness, prayer, obedience to Scripture, faith, and delight in the Lord. We drift toward compromise and call it tolerance; We drift toward disobedience and call it freedom; We drift toward superstition and call it faith. We cherish the indiscipline of lost self-control and call it relaxation; we slouch toward prayerlessness and delude ourselves into thinking we have escaped legalism; we slide toward godlessness and convince ourselves we have been liberated?" - D A Carson

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by moonglow View Post
                          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
                          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?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by John146 View Post
                            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
                            "People do not drift toward holiness. Apart from grace-driven effort, people do not gravitate toward godliness, prayer, obedience to Scripture, faith, and delight in the Lord. We drift toward compromise and call it tolerance; We drift toward disobedience and call it freedom; We drift toward superstition and call it faith. We cherish the indiscipline of lost self-control and call it relaxation; we slouch toward prayerlessness and delude ourselves into thinking we have escaped legalism; we slide toward godlessness and convince ourselves we have been liberated?" - D A Carson

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by moonglow View Post
                              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 bless
                              If 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?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X