- May 19, 2015
- 125,492
- 28,588
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
You can't have a burning City without fire............I was just comparing it to known second coming passages in the NT. Fire isn't used against the enemy at the second coming.
70AD Apostate Jerusalem was the enemy of Christ and the NC Saints
The Great City/Harlot/Queen Revelation chapts 17-19
Revelation 17:16
And the ten Horns which thou saw and the Beast, These shall be hating the harlot,
and They shall be making Her desolate<2049> and naked,
and the fleshes of Her they shall be eating
and shall be burning Her in fire.
17 For the GOD gives<1325> into Their hearts to do<4160> the mind<1106> of Him, and to do One mind
and to give Their kingdom to the Beast
until shall be being finished<5055> the words of the GOD.
Revelation 18:18
And they cried<2896>, observing the smoke of Her burning, saying, "What like to the great City?"
19 and they cast dust upon their heads, and cried<2896>, lamenting<2799>, weeping and mourning<3996>, saying,
"Woe! woe! the great City! in which are rich all those having ships<4143> in the sea, out of Her preciousness<5094>,
for to one hour was She was desolated<2049>.
--===============================
The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD
The day on which Titus encompassed Jerusalem, was the feast of the Passover ;
The tumult and disorder which ensued upon this event, it is impossible (says Josephus) for language to describe. The Roman legions made the most horrid outcries ; the rebels, finding themselves exposed to the fury of both fire and sword, screamed dreadfully ; while the unhappy people who were pent up between the enemy and the flames, deplored their situation in the most pitiable complaints. Those on the hill and those in the city seemed mutually to return the groans of each other. Such as were expiring through famine, were revived by this hideous scene, and seemed to acquire new spirits to deplore their misfortunes. The lamentations from the city wore re-echoed from the adjacent mountains, and places beyond Jordan.
The flames which enveloped the Temple were so violent and impetuous, that the lofty hill. on which it stood appeared, even front its deep foundations, as one large body of fire.
==========================
Chris Strevel: Rome or Jerusalem? A Comparative Analysis of the Harlot Imagery in Revelation 17 (2005)
By Chris Strevel
Statement of the Question
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the harlot imagery utilized by the apostle John in Revelation 17 and to determine as far as possible its historical referent. My purpose may be more narrowly defined. Through the judgment of the great harlot, was John referring to the destruction of the imperial city of Rome or of the city of Jerusalem? Though all schools of interpretation have wrestled with the identity of the harlot, the question is especially important for the preterist. Though many commentators are willing to recognize that John made use of these historical cities as his literary and historical background, they refuse to admit that it was his chief purpose to foresee the divine judgment upon them. Because preterists believe that John was writing to the seven churches in Asia concerning events that were to occur in their immediate lifetimes, they maintain that the cities and movements of that day were the primary referent of the majority of John’s prophecies. It is inappropriate, therefore, to continue searching for the harlot of Revelation 17. This prophetic symbol has been realized in one of these two historical cities.
The Jerusalem Interpretation
Strong evidence exists for the view that the harlot is the apostate city of Jerusalem. Milton Terry and James Stuart Russell were two leading advocates of this view in the 19th century. A resurgence of this view may be seen in the through the commentaries and writings of J. Massyngberde Ford, Cornelius Vanderwaal, Ken Gentry, and the late David Chilton. The initial strengths of this view are its conformity to the analogy of Scriptural in determining the significance of “harlot,” consistent application of John’s symbolism, and understanding of the significance of Jerusalem’s fall in A.D. 70 for redemptive history. Gentry summarizes the evidence for the Jerusalem=harlot interpretation.
Briefly, the evidence for the identifying of Jerusalem as the Harlot is based on the following: (1) Both are called ‘the great city’ (Rev. 14:8; 11:8). (2) The Harlot is filled with the blood of the saints (cp. Rev. 16:6; 17:6; 18:21,24; w/ Matt. 23:34-48; Luke 13:33; Acts 7:51,52). (3) Jerusalem had previously been called by pagan names quite compatible with the designation ‘Babylon’ (cp. Rev. 14:8 and 17:5 with 11:8). (4) Rome could not fornicate against God, for only Jerusalem was God’s wife (Rev. 17:2-5; cp. Isa. 1:20; Jere. 31:31). (5) There is an obvious contrast between the Harlot and the chaste bride (cp. Rev. 17:2-5 with Rev. 21:1ff.) that suggests a contrast with the Jerusalem below and the Jerusalem above (Rev. 21;2; cp. Gal. 4:24ff.; Heb. 12:18). (6) The fact that the Harlot is seated on the seven-headed Beast (obviously representative of Rome) indicates not identify with Rome, but alliance with Rome against Christianity (cp. Matt. 23:37ff.; John 19:16ff.; Acts 17:7)..............
If that is the case, why do the majority of commentators dismiss the Jerusalem=harlot view with small footnotes and passing allusions? The answer to this question is complex. It centers around the failure of theologians and commentators to grasp or admit the significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 for God’s redemptive program in history.................
Conclusion
It has not been my intention in this paper to explicate every textual detail in chapters 17 and 18 related to the judgment of the great harlot. Rather, I have endeavored to demonstrate that advocates of the Jerusalem=harlot view have a strong case to offer the Church of Christ in her ongoing attempt to correctly understand the final book of our English Bibles.
If that is the case, why do the majority of commentators dismiss the Jerusalem=harlot view with small footnotes and passing allusions? The answer to this question is complex. It centers around the failure of theologians and commentators to grasp or admit the significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 for God’s redemptive program in history.
This event was a dramatic shift from the Jerusalem-based kingdom of God in the Old Testament and certainly required explication from the biblical authors. This is why Jesus spoke so often to the subject, and ultimately why he had John dedicate the final book of the New Testament to the one climactic event that would reveal the end of the old Jewish order in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple environs in A.D. 70.
Last edited:
Upvote
0