Jerusalem or Rome: Who is Babylon the Great?

[ewq1938]

Throughout the book of Revelation, the name "the great city" is always applied to Babylon. I consider the context of this book.

Is Babylon ever a holy city?

 

[ewq1938]

Other translations are more accurate:
ASV
and they are seven kings
AMP
and they are seven kings
NASB
and they are seven kings

"they" referring to the mountains. They, the seven mountains, are seven Kings.

Those are translations based on bad manuscripts. The true verse separates the 7/8 consecutive kings of mostly the past from the 7 mountains the first beasts kingdoms exist within.

How can the kings be the mountains when 6 of the 8 kings are gone in the past and the beast rises with all 7 heads in tact with ZER0 having fallen in the past? That proves the kings are the mountains as false, and impossible.

It's like saying the FUTURE ten horns/kings of the Rev 13 seven headed beast are the first ten presidents of the USA.

 

[WhoIsLikeGod?]

I believe it's Jerusalem, because...

1. Babylon is the city where the Lord was crucified. (Revelation 11:8)
2. Babylon killed all Prophets and Saints (Revelation 18:24); same did Jesus say about Jerusalem (Matthew 23:30-37).
3. Babylon is the city which was on the beast with the seven heads. The seven heads which are symbolical described mountains aren't literal mountains, they represent Kingdoms. The first six Kingdoms are Babylon, Medo-Persia, Macedonia, Ptolemaic, Seleucid and Roman Empire. That Babylon was on the heads means it existed in their times and had influence. Rome only entered the world stage from the sixth head, with the Roman Empire. Jerusalem, on the other hand, existed and had influence since Babylon, and even before. Moreover, Jerusalem has always killed prophets from Babylon to the Roman Empire and even before. Rome did not.

In my opinion, these three points clearly disqualify Rome as Babylon. It can only be Jerusalem. Remember that through the Acts of the Apostles it is known that the Jews were the first to persecute the Church. They are called enemies of God in the NT and Jesus in Revelation calls their synagogues "synagogues of the devil".

Preface, I am not a partial preterist. I believe that the destruction of Babylon does not refer to the event in 70 AD. There will be a third and final destruction of Jerusalem.

Anyone who thinks I am wrong or would like to add something is welcome to do so.

Jerusalem. The seven heads of the beast from the sea are the seven hills of Rome. How can Rome, personified by a prostitute, sit on a beast with seven heads representing the seven hills of Rome?

 

[WhoIsLikeGod?]

Rome.

And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”

At the writing of this in Revelation, there was only one city who reigns over the kings of the earth. That city was Rome

However has control of Jerusalem has control of the world.

 

[Lost4words]

Didnt Peter use 'Babylon' as a name for Rome?

 

[ewq1938]

However has control of Jerusalem has control of the world.

Muslims used to control Jerusalem but I don't recall them also having controlled the world.

 

[WhoIsLikeGod?]

I don't understand how some people can believe that the seven mountains literally mean seven mountains. Just read the same verse completely. The angel gives us the interpretation and explains that the seven mountains represent seven kings (Revelation 17:9-10). This is metaphorical language. The beast with the 7 heads and 10 horns is meant to show the four beasts (and the statue) from the book of Daniel as one. The first beast (lion/gold) from Daniel has 1 head, the second beast (bear/silver) has 1 head, the third beast (leopard/bronze) has 4 heads and the fourth beast has 1 head and 10 horns. Taken together, the beasts have 7 heads and 10 horns. Daniel helps us and explains that the first head is the Babylonian Empire (Daniel 2:38). The angel of Revelation tells us that five of the heads have already fallen and that the sixth head existed at the time Revelation was written. The sixth head must therefore be the Roman Empire. So the first head is Babylon and the sixth is Rome. And we know the four heads between Babylon and Rome have already fallen. With these clues it is now very easy for us to find out who the four heads are. The kingdoms that ruled over Israel chronologically between these two kingdoms are Medo-Persia, Macedonia, Ptolemaic and Seleucid.

Those who claim that Rome is both Babylon the Great and also one of the heads are in contradiction. Scripture distinguishes the heads between the woman who sits on the heads. The woman cannot be one of the heads. The woman must be a city that is not one of the heads. @RandyPNW @d taylor @Saint JOHN

Emun, the beast from the sea has seven heads. If the seven heads represent seven kings, which they do, then why would the seven mountains also represent these same seven kings? Wouldn't you be able to take the mountains out altogether?

The seven heads denote the seven hills of Rome. They also denote seven Italian kings reigning between the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806 and just after the end of the World War II (1946). They are:

1. Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia (r. 1802–1821)
2. Carlo Felice Giuseppe Maria di Savoia (r. 1821–1831)
3. Carlo Alberto Emanuele Vittorio Maria Clemente Saverio di Savoia (r. 1831–1849)
4. Vittorio Emanuele Maria Alberto Eugenio Ferdinando Tommaso (r. 1849–1878)
5. Umberto Ranieri Carlo Emanuele Giovanni Maria Ferdinando Eugenio di Savoia (r. 1878–1900)
6. Vittorio Emanuele Ferdinando Maria Gennaro di Savoia-Carignano (r. 1900–1946)
7. Umberto Nicola Tommaso Giovanni Maria di Savoia (r. 1946)

* Reigned only 34 days

They are blasphemous names. Emanuele means "God Is With Us." Guiseppe means "God Will Add, Increase." Giovanni means "God Is Gracious."

The sixth head, Victor Emmanuel III, was wounded by an Austrian grenade, hospitalized, and healed.

Daniel's four beasts and the beast from the sea are not one. Daniel's fourth beast doesn't have ten horns; it actually has eleven. The eleventh horn is the little one that came up among the ten, before which three of the horns fell. The beast from the sea doesn't have this horn. And while Daniel's four beasts do collectively have seven heads, the sixth one would be the Seleucid Empire, not the Roman Empire, which would be seventh.

Daniel's first beast was indeed the Babylonian Empire. His second beast was indeed the Medo-Persian Empire. His third beast was indeed the Greek Empire. His fourth beast was indeed the Roman Empire.

The eleven horns of the fourth beast were as follows:

1. Pompey the Great (r. 63–49 BC)
2. Julius Caesar (r. 49–44 BC)
3. Augustus (r. 44 BC–AD 14)
4. Tiberius (r. AD 14–37)
5. Caligula (r. AD 37–41)
6. Claudius (r. AD 41–54)
7. Nero (r. AD 54–69)
8. Galba (r. AD 69)*
9. Otho (r. AD 69)*
10. Vitellius (r. AD 69–70)*
11. Vespasian (r. AD 69–79)

* The Year of the Four Emperors, AD 69, was the first civil war of the Roman Empire, during which four emperors ruled in succession: Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian. It is considered an important interval, marking the transition from the Julio-Claudians, the first imperial dynasty, to the Flavian dynasty. The period witnessed several rebellions and claimants, with shifting allegiances and widespread turmoil in Rome and the provinces.

 

[sparow]

Rome.

And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”

At the writing of this in Revelation, there was only one city who reigns over the kings of the earth. That city was Rome

A woman in prophesy and symbolic language means a church, and the church that has ruled over kings is the Catholic Church, the Vatican more so than Rome.

 

[d taylor]

A woman in prophesy and symbolic language means a church, and the church that has ruled over kings is the Catholic Church, the Vatican more so than Rome.

It states in the verse great city which rules,

 

[shepherdsword]

I believe it's Jerusalem, because...

1. Babylon is the city where the Lord was crucified. (Revelation 11:8)
2. Babylon killed all Prophets and Saints (Revelation 18:24); same did Jesus say about Jerusalem (Matthew 23:30-37).
3. Babylon is the city which was on the beast with the seven heads. The seven heads which are symbolical described mountains aren't literal mountains, they represent Kingdoms. The first six Kingdoms are Babylon, Medo-Persia, Macedonia, Ptolemaic, Seleucid and Roman Empire. That Babylon was on the heads means it existed in their times and had influence. Rome only entered the world stage from the sixth head, with the Roman Empire. Jerusalem, on the other hand, existed and had influence since Babylon, and even before. Moreover, Jerusalem has always killed prophets from Babylon to the Roman Empire and even before. Rome did not.

In my opinion, these three points clearly disqualify Rome as Babylon. It can only be Jerusalem. Remember that through the Acts of the Apostles it is known that the Jews were the first to persecute the Church. They are called enemies of God in the NT and Jesus in Revelation calls their synagogues "synagogues of the devil".

Preface, I am not a partial preterist. I believe that the destruction of Babylon does not refer to the event in 70 AD. There will be a third and final destruction of Jerusalem.

Anyone who thinks I am wrong or would like to add something is welcome to do so.

It cannot be Jerusalem for several reasons. One is that Jerusalem is referred to as "Sodom" and "Egypt" but never as Babylon. Another, and this one seals the impossibility, is that the judgment on Babylon is perpetual destruction that lasts for ever. This cannot be the fate of Jerusalem.

 

[Emun]

It cannot be Jerusalem for several reasons. One is that Jerusalem is referred to as "Sodom" and "Egypt" but never as Babylon.

A weak argument. Tell me where Rome is called Babylon in the Bible? You don't find that either. The descriptions of Babylon the Great make it clear that Jerusalem must be meant. Furthermore, the name "the great city" is always applied to Babylon everywhere else in the book of Revelation. Explain to me why this is suddenly not the case in Revelation 11:8?

Another, and this one seals the impossibility, is that the judgment on Babylon is perpetual destruction that lasts for ever.

The final destruction of Jerusalem will happen soon. God will destroy this city through the Antichrist.

This cannot be the fate of Jerusalem.

Explain to me why? Because it is supposedly the City of God? This city has not been the city of God for a long time. It is not holy. God left this city on the day of the crucifixion. God tore the temple curtain on that day (Matthew 27:51), do you know what that means? It was a symbolic message to the Jews and to the world that the time of the old covenant is over. God has left this temple and this city, and chose a new temple and a new city. The church is his new home.

You have unfortunately fallen into dispensationalism. I advise you to leave this invented modern teaching and return to the consensus teaching of the church fathers.

 

[parousia70]

Rome.

And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”

At the writing of this in Revelation, there was only one city who reigns over the kings of the earth. That city was Rome

There is only ONE City that scripture EVER bestows that title to.

Jerusalem.

Earthly Jerusalem, by Divine right and calling, was the preeminent city among all nations. The Hebrew/Biblical understanding of Jerusalem is that she is the "Chief of the nations" (Jeremiah 31:7; Ez 5:5), the Queen city of the earth (Lam 1:1/Rev 18:7). She, by Divine right and covenant, was appointed as the head of all nations (Deut 26:19; Deut 15:6; Deut 28:1,10-13), and the gentile kings recognized God's dwelling was at Jerusalem with the Hebrews (1 Ki 10:24; Luke 11:31; Ezra 1:2; Dan 2:47, 3:28-29, 4:1-3, 4:17, 4:34-37; Ezra 1; Ezra 4-7; Ezra 7:15,23).

The Governor of all nations (Ps. 22:28) lived in Jerusalem in his House (Ez 7:15,23), and all the kingdom, power and might over earth was His (1 Chron 29:11-12). Indeed, all kings receive their power to rule from that Divine King (Rom 13:1-2,6; John 19:11; 1 Pet 2:13-14,17; Ez 1:2; Dan 1:1-2; Dan 2:20-21; Dan 2:37-38; Dan 2:47, Dan 3:28-29; Dan 4:1-3,17,34-37.).

At the writing of Revelation, there is only one city with the Biblical authority to reign over the Kings of the Earth.
Jerusalem.

 

[DavidPT]

There is only ONE City that scripture EVER bestows that title to.

Jerusalem.

Earthly Jerusalem, by Divine right and calling, was the preeminent city among all nations. The Hebrew/Biblical understanding of Jerusalem is that she is the "Chief of the nations" (Jeremiah 31:7; Ez 5:5), the Queen city of the earth (Lam 1:1/Rev 18:7). She, by Divine right and covenant, was appointed as the head of all nations (Deut 26:19; Deut 15:6; Deut 28:1,10-13), and the gentile kings recognized God's dwelling was at Jerusalem with the Hebrews (1 Ki 10:24; Luke 11:31; Ezra 1:2; Dan 2:47, 3:28-29, 4:1-3, 4:17, 4:34-37; Ezra 1; Ezra 4-7; Ezra 7:15,23).

The Governor of all nations (Ps. 22:28) lived in Jerusalem in his House (Ez 7:15,23), and all the kingdom, power and might over earth was His (1 Chron 29:11-12). Indeed, all kings receive their power to rule from that Divine King (Rom 13:1-2,6; John 19:11; 1 Pet 2:13-14,17; Ez 1:2; Dan 1:1-2; Dan 2:20-21; Dan 2:37-38; Dan 2:47, Dan 3:28-29; Dan 4:1-3,17,34-37.).

At the writing of Revelation, there is only one city with the Biblical authority to reign over the Kings of the Earth.
Jerusalem.

If it is meaning Jerusalem, maybe it is maybe it isn't, it would be meaning in a spiritual sense and not a literal sense, and for certain would not be meaning Jerusalem's destruction in 70 AD, the fact that was a literal event, which then contradicts the following if assuming the following is pertaining to Jerusalem's destruction in 70 AD.

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.

It is crystal clear, the meaning of this---and shall be found no more at all---that this is as if this great city had never existed once this is fulfilled, and that it will never exist ever again in any sense once this has been fulfilled.

If we make Babylon meaning the literal city Jerusalem in the first century, and that we interpret this verse to mean it's destruction in 70 AD, one would have to be out of touch with reality to not notice that this literal city still exists, even today, and that it is mainly occupied and controlled by unbelieving Jews, which then disagrees with this---and shall be found no more at all---if we attempt to apply verse 21 to the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century. Which then makes one wonder, in regards to interpreters who might be doing that, what part of---and shall be found no more at all---are they not grasping?

 

[Emun]

If it is meaning Jerusalem, maybe it is maybe it isn't, it would be meaning in a spiritual sense and not a literal sense, and for certain would not be meaning Jerusalem's destruction in 70 AD, the fact that was a literal event, which then contradicts the following if assuming the following is pertaining to Jerusalem's destruction in 70 AD.

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.

It is crystal clear, the meaning of this---and shall be found no more at all---that this is as if this great city had never existed once this is fulfilled, and that it will never exist ever again, in any sense once this has been fulfilled.

If we make Babylon meaning the literal city Jerusalem in the first century, and that we interpret this verse to mean it's destruction in 70 AD, one would have to be out of touch with reality to not notice that this literal city still exists, even today, and that it is mainly occupied and controlled by unbelieving Jews, which then disagrees with this---and shall be found no more at all---if we attempt to apply verse 21 to the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century. Which then makes one wonder, in regards to interpreters who might be doing that, what part of---and shall be found no more at all---are they not grasping?

It is clearly literal. The city of Jerusalem will be wiped out. And whether the Jews in Jerusalem are unbelievers is irrelevant, they have always been unbelievers. Whoever does not believe in the cross is an unbeliever. What is relevant is that these Jews who live there today are the descendants of the biblical Jews. They will pay for the sins of their fathers, Jesus prophesied that. And as for preterism, it is clear from Scripture that it is unbiblical.

 

[DavidPT]

It is clearly literal. The city of Jerusalem will be wiped out. And whether the Jews in Jerusalem are unbelievers is irrelevant, they have always been unbelievers. Whoever does not believe in the cross is an unbeliever. What is relevant is that these Jews who live there today are the descendants of the biblical Jews. They will pay for the sins of their fathers, Jesus prophesied that. And as for preterism, it is clear from Scripture that it is unbiblical.

Let's assume it is literal. That still doesn't take away from the point I was making involving the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century, though. That clearly isn't the fulfillment of Revelation 18:21, being the main point I was trying to make.

And when you think about it, the fact the new Jerusalem comes down from heaven eventually, and that it is that Jerusalem, not the old Jerusalem, that continues forever, it only stands to reason that the old Jerusalem has to be done away with in order to make way the NJ. Might that involve the total destruction of the old Jerusalem in order to accomplish that? That, I don't know. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Clearly, the region where Jerusalem is located now, that region is still going to remain the same on the globe, regardless. IOW, it's not like, for example, where the the USA is currently situated regionally, that this is where the NJ will be regionally located some day.

 

[d taylor]

There is only ONE City that scripture EVER bestows that title to.

Jerusalem.

Earthly Jerusalem, by Divine right and calling, was the preeminent city among all nations. The Hebrew/Biblical understanding of Jerusalem is that she is the "Chief of the nations" (Jeremiah 31:7; Ez 5:5), the Queen city of the earth (Lam 1:1/Rev 18:7). She, by Divine right and covenant, was appointed as the head of all nations (Deut 26:19; Deut 15:6; Deut 28:1,10-13), and the gentile kings recognized God's dwelling was at Jerusalem with the Hebrews (1 Ki 10:24; Luke 11:31; Ezra 1:2; Dan 2:47, 3:28-29, 4:1-3, 4:17, 4:34-37; Ezra 1; Ezra 4-7; Ezra 7:15,23).

The Governor of all nations (Ps. 22:28) lived in Jerusalem in his House (Ez 7:15,23), and all the kingdom, power and might over earth was His (1 Chron 29:11-12). Indeed, all kings receive their power to rule from that Divine King (Rom 13:1-2,6; John 19:11; 1 Pet 2:13-14,17; Ez 1:2; Dan 1:1-2; Dan 2:20-21; Dan 2:37-38; Dan 2:47, Dan 3:28-29; Dan 4:1-3,17,34-37.).

At the writing of Revelation, there is only one city with the Biblical authority to reign over the Kings of the Earth.
Jerusalem.

The verse in Revelation plainly states the city that reigns, not the city that will eventually reign.

 

[sparow]

It states in the verse great city which rules,

Which translation are you quoting from

 

[d taylor]

Which translation are you quoting from

Well when i wrote my original post the verse posted was from NKJV which uses reigns over the kings of the earth but when i replied to you i just wrote out "rules" instead of "reigns".

 

[sparow]

Well when i wrote my original post the verse posted was from NKJV which uses reigns over the kings of the earth but when i replied to you i just wrote out "rules" instead of "reigns".

You question confused me, and I am still not sure what you wanted to know or what you were questioning. God has said some where that He sets up kings and brings them down again; the Pope has allegedly made the same claim, resulting in suggestions of blasphemy. The metaphor Babylon the Great, does it represent buildings or the lost people; the New Jerusalem is the saved people.

 

[d taylor]

You question confused me, and I am still not sure what you wanted to know or what you were questioning. God has said some where that He sets up kings and brings them down again; the Pope has allegedly made the same claim, resulting in suggestions of blasphemy. The metaphor Babylon the Great, does it represent buildings or the lost people; the New Jerusalem is the saved people.

Not sure what question you are speaking of. The post i have made have been about the city that Revelation 17 speaks of, which is Rome.