Jerusalem or Rome: Who is Babylon the Great?

[DavidPT]

You know what's funny. This passage refers to the return of the Jews after the Babylonian exile. And we see that the Jews later went into exile again after the Romans defeated the city. Why? Because they broke the covenant. The old covenant is over.

Assuming that is true, and the fact God is the speaker in that passage, why did God flat out lie then? There is no way that---they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them---equals this---This passage refers to the return of the Jews after the Babylonian exile. And we see that the Jews later went into exile again after the Romans defeated the city.

The only way to not contradict what God said in Amos 9:14-15 is by interpreting that passage to mean post 70 AD, and certainly not after the Babylonian exile instead. Your interpretation of that passage makes God a liar since He plainly said--they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them---if after they are back in their land and they are pulled up out of their land which He has given them.

If you still disagree then prove that passage said this---they shall be pulled up out of their land which I have given them---rather than this---they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them. Or prove how those mean the exact same thing.

As to that passage, my translation records it like such.

Amos 9:14 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.
15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.



Your translation apparently records it as such instead, or maybe it's not your translation doing that, it is your interpretation of that passage doing that. IOW, taking away from what it plainly says. And since it is impossible for God to lie, He is not going to say He will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which He has given them, then do the exact opposite, pull them up out of their land which He has given them, since that would make Him a liar, not someone that can't lie.

Amos 9:14 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.
15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.


By you interpreting that passage to involve the return of the Jews after the Babylonian exile proves you are interpreting that passage in a literal sense. Therefore, you are without excuse when you insist God ended up doing the opposite of what He said He was going to do, that He pulled them out of their land which He has given them, after He had planted them upon their own land, thus making God out to be a liar in verse 15.

Why would any Christian who already knows good and well that it is impossible for God to lie, want to interpret something He plainly said, in such a manner that it makes Him out to be a liar rather than someone that can't lie?

 

[Emun]

Assuming that is true, and the fact God is the speaker in that passage, why did God flat out lie then? There is no way that---they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them---equals this---This passage refers to the return of the Jews after the Babylonian exile. And we see that the Jews later went into exile again after the Romans defeated the city.

The only way to not contradict what God said in Amos 9:14-15 is by interpreting that passage to mean post 70 AD, and certainly not after the Babylonian exile instead. Your interpretation of that passage makes God a liar since He plainly said--they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them---if after they are back in their land and they are pulled up out of their land which He has given them.

If you still disagree then prove that passage said this---they shall be pulled up out of their land which I have given them---rather than this---they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them. Or prove how those mean the exact same thing.

As to that passage, my translation records it like such.

Amos 9:14 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.
15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.



Your translation apparently records it as such instead, or maybe it's not your translation doing that, it is your interpretation of that passage doing that. IOW, taking away from what it plainly says. And since it is impossible for God to lie, He is not going to say He will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which He has given them, then do the exact opposite, pull them up out of their land which He has given them, since that would make Him a liar, not someone that can't lie.

Amos 9:14 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.
15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.


By you interpreting that passage to involve the return of the Jews after the Babylonian exile proves you are interpreting that passage in a literal sense. Therefore, you are without excuse when you insist God ended up doing the opposite of what He said He was going to do, that He pulled them out of their land which He has given them, after He had planted them upon their own land, thus making God out to be a liar in verse 15.

Why would any Christian who already knows good and well that it is impossible for God to lie, want to interpret something He plainly said, in such a manner that it makes Him out to be a liar rather than someone that can't lie?

I did not say that God lied. I even answered the question. I wrote, "Because they broke the covenant"

The promise was tied to the condition that they keep the covenant. This is not explicitly stated in the text, but it is meant that way, you just have to look at the Bible in context. Because they have forsaken God, the old covenant has been broken and thus the promises are no longer valid for them.

That the passage in Amos refers to the return after the Babylonian exile is actually obvious. However, there are also Bible commentaries that use this passage in relation to the church. For example, Pulpit says:
"This was not true of the literal Israel; it must be taken of the spiritual seed, planted in God's land, the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. "Lo," says Christ, "I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world""

 

[Emun]

Jesus announced the new covenant and Jesus announced that a new people will inherit the kingdom of God.

Luke 22:20
This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant in My blood.
Matthew 21:43
The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who bear its fruit.

The New Covenant: Christianity
The New People: Christians

 

[JulieB67]

I believe it's the one world/ religious system headed by Satan and Co. Babylon is derived from babel which means confusion. We are to come out of confusion, not a city. I think the city is symbolic of the entire system. The confusion is the fact that many will worship Satan actually believing he is the savior. He will be disguised as an angel of light. That's the snare (trap) that will come upon the entire world.

ETA I do believe Jerusalem of course will be the base because that's where Satan/Antichrist will sit proclaiming to be God.

 

[parousia70]

What is your problem with GODS Holy Land? They are STILL HIS PEOPLE.

John says those who reject Jesus have no claim to the father whatsoever. You, in contrast, assert that modern Israeli Christ rejecters have a legitimate claim to the father.

When faced with choosing which of these two polar opposite claims is true and correct, that of the inspired 1st century apostle John, or that of random, 21st-century Internet guy J Mick, my money is on John.

 

[Timtofly]

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

No.

 

[Lost4words]

No.

I believe he did...

 

[Canuckster]

This passage refers to the return of the Jews after the Babylonian exile.

You make some very interesting points. I’m not certain that this Babylon the Great is a physical city. Not all the Jews returned to Jerusalem after their emancipation by Cyrus. Many chose to stay in the comforts of Babylon where they established the seat of the Exilarch at Nehardea, 6th century BC, and remained virtually unmoved from Babylon for over 1,000 years until it was temporarily forced out by the Byzantines only to return with the Islamic conquest. Nehardea is also where the first synagogue was built along with the creation of Judaism, based on the oral traditions of the sages. This was the beginnings of a powerful international Babylonian Jewry that infiltrated the highest levels of gentile royalty through intermarriage and intrigue. They were not the same as the nationalist Jews who were descended from the priesthood and left Babylon with Ezra to endure the hardships of rebuilding the Temple and reestablishing traditional worship (not Judaism) according to the Book of the Law. They were opposed to intermarriage and gentile conversions. Following the intrigues of these international Babylonians who have cloaked themselves within the successive empires of Persia, Macedonia, Parthia, Sassanids and Islam brings us closer to understanding where or who is this “city” Babylon the Great. Is it Jerusalem, Rome or an ancient Babylonian entity whoring with and cloaked within all the nations of the earth? I can understand why certain kings of the Beast will get sick of this Babylonian harlot riding on their backs and manipulating their every move through international trade, finance and enchantments (media).

 

[Emun]

I believe he did...

You refer to 1 Peter 5:13 where Peter talks about a church in Babylon. He does not identify Rome with Babylon in this passage. It is only a theory. He could have meant literal Babylon or he could have meant Jerusalem.

 

[Timtofly]

Jesus announced the new covenant and Jesus announced that a new people will inherit the kingdom of God.

Luke 22:20
This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant in My blood.
Matthew 21:43
The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who bear its fruit.

The New Covenant: Christianity
The New People: Christians

And Christianity went apostate faster than Israel did, and broke their covenant with God. You have no point. God literally does not have to deal with Israel nor the church, according to your logical explanation.

Since the OT was given to Israel that leaves out any restoration of the church. You need something from the NT that restores the church back to God.

 

[Emun]

And Christianity went apostate faster than Israel did, and broke their covenant with God. You have no point. God literally does not have to deal with Israel nor the church, according to your logical explanation.

Since the OT was given to Israel that leaves out any restoration of the church. You need something from the NT that restores the church back to God.

The Old Covenant was made between God and Israel. The New Covenant was made between God and Jesus. The Old Covenant was broken because Israel sinned. The New Covenant can be broken only when Jesus sins. And we know that this is impossible. No matter how much Christians sin, the covenant cannot even get a scratch.

 

[DavidPT]

I did not say that God lied. I even answered the question. I wrote, "Because they broke the covenant"

The promise was tied to the condition that they keep the covenant. This is not explicitly stated in the text, but it is meant that way, you just have to look at the Bible in context. Because they have forsaken God, the old covenant has been broken and thus the promises are no longer valid for them.

That the passage in Amos refers to the return after the Babylonian exile is actually obvious. However, there are also Bible commentaries that use this passage in relation to the church. For example, Pulpit says:
"This was not true of the literal Israel; it must be taken of the spiritual seed, planted in God's land, the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. "Lo," says Christ, "I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world""

I wasn't implying that you yourself was calling God a liar in that passage. I was implying that your interpretation of that passage, the fact you take it in a literal sense if you are applying that to after the Babylon captivity, then applying 70 AD to it after that. Which then means God literally did the opposite of what He indicated He was going to do once He planted them back into their land again, that they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which He has given them.

How then does what happened to them in 70 AD remotely equal this--and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them?

If we take this passage in the literal sense, the only way to not contradict what God said in Amos 9:15, we have to take this to be meaning post 70 AD rather than prior to 70 AD. That way this part---and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them--remains true once God accomplishes this part---And I will plant them upon their land.

Keeping in mind, this is meaning if we interpret verse 15 in a literal sense. The question is, should that verse be interpreted in a literal sense to begin with? I don't know why not. Therefore, your interpretation makes God out to be a liar in verse 15, if after He plants them back into their land, 70 AD happens to them, which then equals the opposite of this--and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them. Even Jews that became Christians, they fled this same land and went elsewhere once 70 AD was approaching. Even they at the time did not equal this---and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them.

 

[Timtofly]

The Old Covenant was made between God and Israel. The New Covenant was made between God and Jesus. The Old Covenant was broken because Israel sinned. The New Covenant can be broken only when Jesus sins. And we know that this is impossible. No matter how much Christians sin, the covenant cannot even get a scratch.

So sin all you want, because you are under no obligation?


Just profess Christ, and you are set?

I don't think that is how God's grace works.

Besides that is being more dispensational than dispensationalist.

 

[Emun]

So sin all you want, because you are under no obligation?


Just profess Christ, and you are set?

I don't think that is how God's grace works.

Besides that is being more dispensational than dispensationalist.

Sola Fide: We are saved only by faith not by works.

 

[Timtofly]

Sola Fide: We are saved only by faith not by works.

Works is not, not sinning.

So your post does not answer the question.

 

[shepherdsword]

Nothing? I have shown several passages that clearly identify Jerusalem as Babylon. You have not responded to any of them.

Revelation 11:1-2 is not about Jerusalem. It is symbolic. Do you know why? Because it is talking about the Holy Temple. There is no longer a temple in Jerusalem. And even if a third temple were built, it would not be God's temple but man's temple, and Scripture would not call that temple holy. According to Peter, the Church is the Holy Temple (1 Peter 2:5). That means the church, that is the Christians will be trampled 42 months. This would harmonize with the passage in Revelation 20:4 that speaks of Christians being executed during the 42 months.

Jerusalem had and still has influence.

You know what's funny. This passage refers to the return of the Jews after the Babylonian exile. And we see that the Jews later went into exile again after the Romans defeated the city. Why? Because they broke the covenant. The old covenant is over.

1) You did post some scriptures that you wrested into your paradigm but you totally misapplied them.
2) It is dishonest to twist any scripture that challenges your position into some symbolic metaphor. Zech 10:8 clearly shows that two thirds of the population of will be destroyed and the rest redeemed.

Zec 13:8 And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.

Zec 14 Gives us the detailed fate of Jerusalem and it is NOT totally destroyed:

Zec 14:2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

This is in perfect agreement with the literal fate of Jerusalem given in Rev11. We are even given the time length. There is nothing symbolic about it.

Rv 11:1-2 And the angel stood, saying,"Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there. 2 But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months.

3) Jerusalem has influence because the Lord will make it a cup of trembling for all nations. In no way does it RULE as Babylon does.
4) It is ridiculous to define Amos 9 as pertaining to the return from Babylon. It clearly states that that after THIS return they will be removed from the land no more. The destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 ad proves that this verse cannot refer to the end of the Babylonian captivity. You what IS funny? The fact that you mention Babylon as the captor of Jerusalem thereby proving that Babylon CANNOT be Jerusalem.

Am 9:14-15 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the Lord thy God

 

[dfw69]

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.

Neither Jerusalem nor Rome zech 5

Jerusalem is not Babylon because the scriptures say Babylon will be destroyed and the city will never inhabited again

Babylon is rebuilt zech 5 and mysterious Babylon will have her headquarters there in the last days .

Jesus will rule from Jerusalem so it will exist when Jesus comes

Babylon is located in the land of shinar zech 5

It is the mysterious part of Babylon that will be destroyed and replaced with the worship of antichrist as god

Mystery Babylon is a false religion/satanic worship ideology that has existed for some time and has ruled the kingdoms of the past through her false doctrines lies manipulations , causing wars hatred and every conceivable evil known to man

It could also be the end of money,commerce,commodities, business, corporations and wealth by trade in general

 

[dfw69]

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

Rome didn't kill the prophets of the Old Testament. It was Jerusalem. Jesus said: "It is impossible for a prophet to be killed outside Jerusalem" (Luke 13:33). He wanted to illustrate that many prophets had already been killed by the Jews. He also said that they are guilty of the blood of all righteous men ever killed on earth. Even for the death of Abel they are declared guilty. These are Jesus' words. The same is said about Babylon the Great.

The Bible does not report any death of the apostles by the Romans, but according to Acts the Jews killed and persecuted the Christians in Jerusalem. They were even fanatical enough to persecute Christians abroad. Jesus already prophesied that Jerusalem would persecute and kill the Christians (Matthew 23:34).

Pilate wanted to free Jesus, the Jews wanted to kill him. They forced the Romans to kill Jesus according to the Gospel.

To be fair Jerusalem is just a city … it’s the religious part that ruled Jerusalem that had him killed

If that religion finds a new home say in Babylon (a future city to be
built in the land of shinar zech5) then that city will be destroyed and found no more.

Jerusalem cannot ever be destroyed Jesus will one day reign from there

 

[Emun]

Jerusalem cannot ever be destroyed Jesus will one day reign from there

Where does it say that Jesus will reign in Jerusalem?

 

[dfw69]

Where does it say that Jesus will reign in Jerusalem?

Jeremiah 23:5-6