Jerusalem did not come to rule over the kings of the world.
Rome did through the papacy.
So you are under the view that Babylon is symbolizing Rome in 1 Peter 5, though there is very little evidence Peter was ever in Rome
1Pe 5:13
She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.
Being a Preterist, I [and a lot of others] view both the Olivet Discourse and Revelation as the destruction of OC Jerusalem in ad 70, and so would the Jews of today if they believed in Jesus and the NT.
The dating of the vision and writing of Revelation is also an important aspect to this fulfillment.
https://www.google.com/search?q=bab.....1ac.1.34.heirloom-serp..5.2.125.jfY2CunFA0I
babylon is jerusalem in bible AD70
I believe
we can agree with the Preterist on the identification of Babylon with Jerusalem, however, we must categorically reject their claims that the prophecies were fulfilled in AD 70.
This chapter will demonstrate that there is no credible historical evidence to show that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 fulfilled Bible prophecy the way the Preterist claim.
Another key tenet of Preterism is dating the Book of Revelation to before AD 70. The strongest defense for the pre-AD 70 date in recent years has been by Kenneth Gentry, Jr. entitled
Before Jerusalem Fell, Dating the Book of Revelation (1998, Revised Edition). This book is a reworking of his doctoral dissertation from Whitefield Theological Seminary in Lakeland, Florida.
The Preterist view has been defined as that view which “holds that the book of Revelation was mostly fulfilled in the first century with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Thus, most of the aspects (such as the Beast, the Great Tribulation, the fall of Babylon, and Armageddon) have already occurred” (Balyeat 1991:226). Within the Preterist camp, there are two positions, the Full Preterist position and the Partial Preterist position. R. C. Sproul, a Partial Preterist, calls the Full Preterist position “radical preterism” because “all future prophecies in the NT have already been fulfilled” (1998:24). Chilton would call them “consistent preterists” (1987:264). Sproul would call himself a “moderate preterist” because “many future prophecies in the NT have already been fulfilled. Some crucial prophecies have not yet been fulfilled” (1998:24).
R. C. Sproul, Kenneth Gentry, Gary De Mar, and others champion the partial preterist position.
John Noe, Edward Stevens, David Chilton right before his death, espouses the Full Preterist view.
When I talked with Stevens and Noe at the ETS meeting, they said that Sproul and DeMar are heading toward the Full Preterist position, but Gentry is not.
The Full Preterist position is making inroads into the theological world and the Pre-Tribulation position is beginning to respond to the position.
.