Mystery, Babylon the Great - earthly Jerusalem?

[1still_waters]

well -literally- he was crucified in the judean countryside outside of any city...

figuratively jesus could be said to have been crucified in 'the world'...which spiritually speaking is the exact opposite of the kingdom of heaven and city of God... conceptually you could compare this with matthew 13:38 where the 'sons of the kingdom' are contrasted with the 'sons of the evil one'...there are always two teams...two spiritual kingdoms...two spiritual cities...

and like i said in an edit to my previous post after you responded...it would not be breaking any grammatical rule to apply the word 'figuratively' in revelation 11:8 to the entire rest of the sentence...including the phrase 'where also their lord was crucified'

Ok so if the city in Rev 11 is figurative does that mean there is a figurative city that will be trampled for 42 months? Is this speaking of a 42 month long trampling of a figurative heavenly holy city?

11 Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told, “Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there, [SUP]2 [/SUP]but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months. [SUP]3 [/SUP]And I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.”

 

[zone]

So which city is Rev referring to when it says the great city Jesus was crucified in?

well, let's look at Peter:

Acts 2:36
"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah."

now, we know Israel was not permitted to, neither would they have personally crucified anyone.
they had other methods under the Law, right?

the Romans carried out the Crucifixion..

yet peter says Israel crucified Him.

are we going to argue with this by saying Israel didn't pound in the nails on Golgotha?

kinda the same (not) logic

 

[zone]

So Jesus was crucified in a figurative spiritual great city?

or figuratively crucified in a real ci....er....
no, the figurative language relates to Jerusalem.
not Jesus

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

i really don't see the problem
the outskirts of Jerusalem were still called Jerusalem.
your point that the burnt sacrifices had to be disposed of outside the camp is self-evident that it was still considered a necessary part of the Levitical system; therefore, Jerusalem.

yes? no? i wonder where the notion comes from that we need to say it wasn't Jerusalem.

where exactly are we attempting to say He was crucified when Revelation tell us His crucifixion was precisely the same place - CITY - which is called Spiritually Sodom and Egypt?

what CITY would that be?

is the worldwide christian church (apostate or otherwise) a city?
even if we say, yes, she belongs to New Jerusalem, the other holy city - are we saying Jesus was crucified THERE?
is God calling Heavenly Jerusalem Sodom & Egypt? He doesn't do it anywhere else.

was Jesus taken all the way to Rome and crucified?

are there not enough passages on God through the prophets equating earthly Jerusalem with an harlot; sodom; egypt; gomorrah?

i'd like to see the passages where the prophets apply the awful names to pagan nations or the church.
wait...hold up - they prophesied to Israel.

the suggestion that Jesus was not crucified in Jerusalem (even outside the gate of the walled city, but on the outskirts) - seems nigh on heretical to me. you'd have to deny pretty much all the Gospel accounts; the sermons and words of the Apostles in Acts, etc.

not to mention Daniel & Revelation.

Daniel 9
24Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. 25Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 26And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


Daniel 9 covers the earthly city Jerusalem...Jesus coming and being killed....right through to her desolation - which we already saw in all the other passages. didn't we

seems pretty clear.

but if you have a burning desire to deny earthly Jerusalem was what God said she was, and that that very city is where our Lord was crucified......well....cough.

and that's all i got to say about that.
for now

most of the tortuous rationalization in this post has already been addressed so i will just respond to a few things...

nobody said that God was calling heavenly jerusalem 'sodom and egypt'...God was calling its evil counterpart sodom and egypt...the counterpart of a good spiritual city is an evil spiritual city...the kingdom of God versus the kingdom of satan...

nobody said jesus was crucified in rome...though judea -was- a roman client kingdom...but i am not making the argument that babylon is to be identified precisely with rome...

pretty much all of the prophetic passages you cited were already fulfilled for jerusalem 600 years before revelation was written...let's not resort to dispensationalist style reassignment of already fulfilled prophecy to other events...

additionally pretty much all of your supposed allusions to the prophets turn out to be mismatches...'sodom and gomorrah' is not the same as 'sodom and egypt'...and if john wanted us to refer back to the old testament prophecies that mention sodom and gomorrah he would have used the words -sodom and gomorrah-

i also pointed out that in the prophets jerusalem is said to have played the harlot -with- egypt and -in- egypt...you can't play the harlot with egypt and be egypt at the same time...you can't play the harlot with yourself...

i find it funny that you are suddenly seeing a distinction between israel and the church...given your repeated harsh past condemnation of anything that even comes close to that notion...

so it is -heretical- to believe what the epistle to the hebrews says...if you say so...

and here you go again for the second time in two days questioning the salvation of anyone who disagrees with you on an issue -besides- salvation by grace through faith in christ alone...stop adding to the gospel!

daniel 9 does talk about the destruction of jerusalem...but it doesn't compare jerusalem to babylon or call it 'the great city'...you are assuming the connection first and then interpreting the text on the basis of your assumption...a backwards hermeneutic...

and...oh look! daniel calls jerusalem the -holy city- even in this chronology that includes the destruction in AD 70...and what's more...jerusalem is called 'the holy city' in revelation itself! see revelation 11:2...

so -that- is the prophetic term for jerusalem...not 'babylon' or 'great city'...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Ok so if the city in Rev 11 is figurative does that mean there is a figurative city that will be trampled for 42 months? Is this speaking of a 42 month long trampling of a figurative heavenly holy city?

11 Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told, “Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there,[SUP]2 [/SUP]but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months.[SUP]3 [/SUP]And I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.”

the 'holy city' is jerusalem...

but note that the text nowhere actually says that the two witnesses prophecy in the same city mentioned in verse two or are killed there...the city where they are killed is finally referred to later in the passage under -another- name...why would john want to throw anyone off the trail by changing his terms midstream?

 

[zone]

Ok so if the city in Rev 11 is figurative does that mean there is a figurative city that will be trampled for 42 months? Is this speaking of a 42 month long trampling of a figurative heavenly holy city?

11 Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told, “Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there,[SUP]2 [/SUP]but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months.[SUP]3 [/SUP]And I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.”

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

well, let's look at Peter:

Acts 2:36
"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah."

now, we know Israel was not permitted to, neither would they have personally crucified anyone.
they had other methods under the Law, right?

the Romans carried out the Crucifixion..

yet peter says Israel crucified Him.

are we going to argue with this by saying Israel didn't pound in the nails on Golgotha?

kinda the same (not) logic

the who and the where are two -completely- different questions...

the passage in revelation doesn't address the who...only the -where-

but nice try at muddying the issue...though i expected more from someone who has recently revealed herself to be a blatantly false teacher...

 

[1still_waters]

the 'holy city' is jerusalem...

but note that the text nowhere actually says that the two witnesses prophecy in the same city mentioned in verse two or are killed there...the city where they are killed is finally referred to later in the passage under -another- name...why would john want to throw anyone off the trail by changing his terms midstream?

To me a greater question is why would John go from referring to a city as a city, then referring to a city as being a non-city and changing those terms midstream?

I mean if it's anathema for John to give two names to the same city in such an immediate context, why isn't it anathema for him to switch from literal city, to figurative undefined city midstream in such an immediate context?

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

the 'holy city' is jerusalem...

but note that the text nowhere actually says that the two witnesses prophecy in the same city mentioned in verse two or are killed there...the city where they are killed is finally referred to later in the passage under -another- name...why would john want to throw anyone off the trail by changing his terms midstream?

just to add an illustration...suppose i said this...

'there are a lot of nice little shops in the old city...my cousin lives in the big city'

there is really no logical or grammatical requirement that you equate the 'the old city' and 'the big city'

the same goes for 'the holy city' and 'the great city' in revelation 11...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

To me a greater question is why would John go from referring to a city as a city, then referring to a city as being a non-city and changing those terms midstream?

I mean if it's anathema for John to give two names to the same city in such an immediate context, why isn't it anathema for him to switch from literal city, to figurative undefined city midstream in such an immediate context?

well it isn't like john left us without a clue in that case...he gives us a pretty obvious hint by his use of the word 'figuratively' in verse eight...

 

[zone]

it has been suggested that:

"allusions to the prophets turn out to be mismatches...'sodom and gomorrah' is not the same as 'sodom and egypt'...and if john wanted us to refer back to the old testament prophecies that mention sodom and gomorrah he would have used the words -sodom and gomorrah"

first of all, direct quotes from Israel's prophets are not allusions.
they are quotes. and there are many of them.

they include (among other awful names) - SODOM....EGYPT....GOMORRAH - those names signify IDOLATRY and DEFILEMENT. we are not speculating on what the LORD's prophets said about Israel repeatedly.

nor are we attempting to force something to fit when it's been repeated by God enough times a 2013 gentile can understand what the prophets (GOD) has said to whom He said it.

it's written so many times, it seems amazing that (as Hank Hanegraff stated) that even a cursory reading of the OT wouldn't alert a modern day reader to exactly what Rev 11 says...particularly since it places JESUS ON THE CROSS THERE.

so let's see if the prophets, in this case Ezekiel mentions THE TWO FIGURATIVE NAMES FROM REVELATION:
(we know Isaiah and paul use others)

Ezekiel 23:2
1The word of the LORD came to me again, saying, 2"Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother; 3and they played the harlot in Egypt. They played the harlot in their youth; there their breasts were pressed and there their virgin bosom was handled.

Ezekiel 16:45
You are a true daughter of your mother, who despised her husband and her children; and you are a true sister of your sisters, who despised their husbands and their children. Your mother was a Hittite and your father an Amorite.

Ezekiel 16:46
Your older sister was Samaria, who lived to the north of you with her daughters; and your younger sister, who lived to the south of you with her daughters, was Sodom.

Ezekiel 23:3
They became prostitutes in Egypt, engaging in prostitution from their youth. In that land their breasts were fondled and their virgin bosoms caressed.

SO, CAN WE REASONABLY SAY...Israel's prophets used all the names?
and that John knew that, as would have the Christians who received The Revelation of Jesus Christ through John?
i don't see why not, since some of today's Christians see it...clearly.

Revelation 11:8
And 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.

anything saying God was restricted in His own choice of names?
He wasn't for prior generations.

i believe God.
it's not hard to do. He said it, i believe it.

 

[1still_waters]

well it isn't like john left us without a clue in that case...he gives us a pretty obvious hint by his use of the word 'figuratively' in verse eight...

That doesn't imply the city is figurative.
It implies there is a figurative label being applied to the city to describe the wickedness.

 

[1still_waters]

I also find it an odd hermeneutic to not allow scripture to interpret scripture.
All these things in Revelation have a point of reference the readers should be familiar with.
Those points of reference are in other scriptures outside of Revelation.

I don't think there are any other books that we'd lance off from the entire Bible, and say.."You can't use those books to interpret this one."

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

it has been suggested that:

"allusions to the prophets turn out to be mismatches...'sodom and gomorrah' is not the same as 'sodom and egypt'...and if john wanted us to refer back to the old testament prophecies that mention sodom and gomorrah he would have used the words -sodom and gomorrah"

first of all, direct quotes from Israel's prophets are not allusions.
they are quotes. and there are many of them.

they include (among other awful names) - SODOM....EGYPT....GOMORRAH - those names signify IDOLATRY and DEFILEMENT. we are not speculating on what the LORD's prophets said about Israel repeatedly.

nor are we attempting to force something to fit when it's been repeated by God enough times a 2013 gentile can understand what the prophets (GOD) has said to whom He said it.

it's written so many times, it seems amazing that (as Hank Hanegraff stated) that even a cursory reading of the OT wouldn't alert a modern day reader to exactly what Rev 11 says...particularly since it places JESUS ON THE CROSS THERE.

so let's see if the prophets, in this case Ezekiel mentions THE TWO FIGURATIVE NAMES FROM REVELATION:
(we know Isaiah and paul use others)



anything saying God was restricted in His own choice of names?
He wasn't for prior generations.

i believe God.
it's not hard to do. He said it, i believe it.

direct quotes would actually match up...what you are claiming to be instances of direct quotation -do not- match up...

calling them direct quotations is so misrepresentative of the truth that i can only regard that assertion as a lie on your part...

and as i already pointed out...ezekiel isn't calling jerusalem 'egypt' in the passage you quote...ezekiel is saying they played the harlot -in- egypt...you can't -be- egypt and also -play the harlot with- egypt...you can't play the harlot with yourself...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

That doesn't imply the city is figurative.
It implies there is a figurative label being applied to the city to describe the wickedness.

ok so the labels are figurative...then the concrete term we have to go by is just 'great city'...and jerusalem is the 'holy city'...not the 'great city' which throughout the bible usually referred to both nineveh and babylon...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

I also find it an odd hermeneutic to not allow scripture to interpret scripture.
All these things in Revelation have a point of reference the readers should be familiar with.
Those points of reference are in other scriptures outside of Revelation.

I don't think there are any other books that we'd lance off from the entire Bible, and say.."You can't use those books to interpret this one."

i am not saying not to let scripture interpret scripture...i am saying that proximity is an important rule of thumb... we should let revelation interpret revelation...and when that fails us let the new testament interpret revelation...before we start using old testament prophecy to interpret revelation...

-especially- when pretty much all of that old testament prophecy was -already fulfilled- 600 years earlier...and especially when most of the supposed old testament references line up poorly with their supposed counterparts in revelation...

and remember that revelation was written in the first century AD...most of john's readers didn't have easy access to a manuscript of ezekiel for example...especially if they were put out of the synagogues as is almost certainly the case by the time of john's writing...their first resort would be to internal context within revelation itself...

 

[NiceneCreed]

point by point refutation of the proof texting...posted earlier today by me in another thread...to be spread out over several posts...


regarding revelation 17:5-6...'drunken with the blood of saints and with the blood of the martyrs of jesus'...by the time revelation was written the romans had martyred far more christians than jerusalem...paul and peter among them... any reader would have thought about rome when they read about the blood of the martyrs...not jerusalem... this isn't to say that the harlot is rome...only to show that the biblical description of the harlot is not specific to jerusalem...since jerusalem isn't even the best fit...

regarding isaiah 1:21...the prophet called jerusalem a harlot around 800 BC...this does not prove that every reference to harlotry in scripture refers to jerusalem... harlotry in scripture stands for pagan idolatry as can be seen from numerous other passages...pagan idolatry was not even one of jerusalem's primary sins in AD 70...and many other cities were far more guilty of pagan idolatry...in fact most of the world was more idolatrous than jerusalem at that point...

regarding matthew 12:39...jesus says that an evil and adulterous -generation- asks for a sign...nothing is said about a -city- being adulterous... the generation being adulterous would again make it clear that this description is not specific to jerusalem...

You make some excellent points. It definitely helps to keep things in context; it's actually quite refreshing!

 

[zone]

i suppose Jeremiah doesn't quite just say great city.
he words it a little differently
so he's out i guess.

Lamentations 1:1
How deserted lies the city, once so full of people! How like a widow is she, who once was great among the nations! She who was queen among the provinces has now become a slave. - NIV

Jerusalem, once so full of people, is now deserted. She who was once great among the nations now sits alone like a widow. Once the queen of all the earth, she is now a slave. - NLT

How lonely sits the city that was full of people! How like a widow has she become, she who was great among the nations! She who was a princess among the provinces has become a slave. - ESV

~

and Ezra doesn't match Revelation either:

Ezra 4:20
There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem, which have ruled over all countries beyond the river; and toll, tribute, and custom, was paid unto them.

or Ezekiel

Ezekiel 5:5
"This is what the Sovereign LORD says: This is Jerusalem, which I have set in the center of the nations, with countries all around her.

Ezekiel 16:14
13"Thus you were adorned with gold and silver, and your dress was of fine linen, silk and embroidered cloth. You ate fine flour, honey and oil; so you were exceedingly beautiful and advanced to royalty. 14"Then your fame went forth among the nations on account of your beauty, for it was perfect because of My splendor which I bestowed on you," declares the Lord GOD. 15"But you trusted in your beauty and played the harlot because of your fame, and you poured out your harlotries on every passer-by who might be willing.

a-a-a-a-a-anyways.
if we can't use israel's prophets; or God's names of derision for the unfaithful city.....

.....we can spiritualize it all and make it the mystical world.
or Rome or....the Jehovah's Witnesses?
what's left after we tear out half the bible?

 

[zone]

it has been suggested that there is "nothing said about A CITY BEING ADULTEROUS"
amazing.



Isaiah 1:21
Holman Christian Standard Bible
The faithful city-- what an adulteress she has become! She was once full of justice. Righteousness once dwelt in her-- but now, murderers!

New International Version
See how the faithful city has become a prostitute! She once was full of justice; righteousness used to dwell in her-- but now murderers!

New Living Translation
See how Jerusalem, once so faithful, has become a prostitute. Once the home of justice and righteousness, she is now filled with murderers.

English Standard Version
How the faithful city has become a whore, she who was full of justice! Righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers.

New American Standard Bible
How the faithful city has become a harlot, She who was full of justice! Righteousness once lodged in her, But now murderers.

King James Bible
How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.

 

[NiceneCreed]

it has been suggested that there is "nothing said about A CITY BEING ADULTEROUS"
amazing.



Isaiah 1:21
Holman Christian Standard Bible
The faithful city-- what an adulteress she has become! She was once full of justice. Righteousness once dwelt in her-- but now, murderers!

New International Version
See how the faithful city has become a prostitute! She once was full of justice; righteousness used to dwell in her-- but now murderers!

New Living Translation
See how Jerusalem, once so faithful, has become a prostitute. Once the home of justice and righteousness, she is now filled with murderers.

English Standard Version
How the faithful city has become a whore, she who was full of justice! Righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers.

New American Standard Bible
How the faithful city has become a harlot, She who was full of justice! Righteousness once lodged in her, But now murderers.

King James Bible
How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.

Zone,

Just my thought on "Babylon the Great," but I am almost certain end times (eschatological topics) prophecies contained within the Bible are to be read as being more literary than literal. Might I ask, do you think of the 'Great Multitude' of the 144,000 as being literal descendants, ethnic Israel, or spiritual Israel? I suppose anything found in the Book of Revelation (or Daniel) is open to interpretation. Lord knows I may be wrong, but that is why we are here on the CC -- to discover new things and listen to the views of others.