Sorry for taking so long with my response! I’m going to briefly address your main points, then bring up something I think we should have discussed before this engaging exchange:
Mother of Harlots:
You argue that Babylon, being the "mother of harlots," is the source of harlotry that Jerusalem later adopted. This interpretation is valid, but it does not exclude Jerusalem from being identified as a harlot in Revelation 17. The term "mother of harlots" can indicate that Babylon was the original source of idolatry, but it doesn't negate Jerusalem's role in perpetuating these practices and being judged for them in Revelation.
Essence of Babylon:
It is true that Babylon symbolizes a mixture of customs and religious practices that were against God's ways. However, the Bible explicitly portrays Jerusalem as having adopted these practices and being judged for them. For instance, Ezekiel 16 and 23 describe Jerusalem’s extensive involvement in idolatry and foreign alliances, likening her to a harlot.
Compulsory Worship of Political/Religious Leaders:
While Rome and Babylon are associated with the worship of political leaders, Jerusalem's history also includes elements of political and religious syncretism. The Jewish leadership's complicity with Roman authorities during the time of Jesus and the early church reflects this.
Origin of Political and Religious Power:
I’ll acknowledge your argument that Babylon was the first organized political and religious power and that Jerusalem adopted its ways. However, Revelation 17's focus is on the current state of corruption and apostasy, which Jerusalem exemplified in the first century through its rejection of the Messiah and persecution of Christians.
Jerusalem's Relative Greatness:
The greatness of Jerusalem in Revelation is not necessarily about its political or military power but its spiritual significance. Jerusalem was the center of God's covenant people and worship, making its apostasy particularly grievous. The term "great city" can thus refer to its importance in the divine narrative, not its political clout.
Papacy and Rome's Historical Influence:
While Rome and the Papacy have had significant influence over centuries, Revelation's focus on Jerusalem as the harlot pertains to its first-century context and spiritual infidelity. The text can apply the harlot imagery to multiple entities representing apostasy, including Rome, but Jerusalem is clearly in view given its role in biblical prophecy and history.
Scriptural Support:
The Old Testament passages (Isaiah 1:21, Hosea 9:1, Jeremiah 3:3, Jeremiah 2:20, Jeremiah 3:1-11) explicitly depict Jerusalem as an unfaithful wife or harlot. These descriptions align with the portrayal of the harlot in Revelation and support the identification of Jerusalem as the harlot judged in the book.
Given the significance of Jerusalem's role in biblical prophecy and its depiction in Revelation, it's important to consider when Revelation was written. The dating of Revelation is crucial because it affects the interpretation of its prophecies.
Early Date (Pre-70 A.D.):
If Revelation was written before 70 A.D., it likely addresses events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. This view aligns with your (preterist) interpretation, which sees Revelation as largely fulfilled in the first century.
Late Date (Post-70 A.D.):
If Revelation was written after 70 A.D., it might focus on future events beyond the first century, including the eventual fall of Rome and eschatological events. This view supports a futurist interpretation, which sees many of Revelation's prophecies as still awaiting fulfillment.
Best Arguments for an Early Date:
Internal evidence suggesting the Temple was still standing (Revelation 11:1-2).
The persecution mentioned aligns with Nero's reign (54-68 A.D.).
Some early Christian writers, such as Irenaeus, suggested an early date.
Best Arguments for a Later Date:
Persecution under Domitian (81-96 A.D.) fits the context of Revelation's themes.
Literary and historical context suggests a response to late first-century developments.
Earliest extant manuscripts and patristic testimony lean towards a late date.
Before we delve further into specific passages in Revelation, I believe it's crucial to discuss the dating of the book first. The timing of its writing is fundamental because it shapes how we interpret its purpose and fulfillment.
Indeed John refers to her as the mother of harlots and abominations in the earth. You argue that Jerusalem was likened to an harlot, yes, but this isn't to call Jerusalem the mother, or source harlot. How could Jerusalem fit this ultimate label? Can you find me a better candidate for the mother of harlots and abominations in the earth than Nimrod's Tower of Babel and then Babylon? Why would God have such a problem with that system that He would take the extreme measure as to confuse the languages and scatter the people? God isn't the source of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33) so this step could almost be viewed as contrary to His nature! This was a dire situation indeed. Was Jerusalem the place from which all nations of the earth got their wicked ways from? Or did Jerusalem simply become polluted with them from somewhere like the other nations did? I wonder where that somewhere could be...
The Tower of Babel, I contend was the mother of harlots and abominations and if allowed to be completed there would be no hope for humanity. Look how dire things got during the middle ages, if not for the Protestant Reformation we very well may still face torture and death for this discussion! Rome had essentially built a tower (heirarchy) which had very real physical consequences for mankind. It was foretold in the Book of Revelation and the original Protestants all knew this and wrote about it extensively. Futurism and Preterism only came about recently (around 1500s) and were seeded by Jesuits to confuse us on the subject, and to marginalize us and render our debates impotent as we get lost in senseless weeds while missing main points due to dogmatic clingings. I don't subscribe to Preterism regardless of which ever views I hold that have been lumped in under that label,
If the date of the writing of the Book of Revelation was so crucial to understanding it would not God have compelled John to include it? I maintain that it's referring to a continuing religiopolitical system and so does not need to be viewed through these constraints. Saying that, I don't know when it was written.
Indeed, John refers to the harlot as the “mother of harlots and abominations of the earth” (Revelation 17:5). While Jerusalem is likened to a harlot, this does not necessarily mean she is the ultimate “mother” or source of all harlotry. Your argument about Babylon, starting with Nimrod’s Tower of Babel, being the original source of such corruption is compelling, given its foundational role in introducing idolatrous practices that spread to other nations, including Jerusalem.
However, the imagery and context within Revelation still support the interpretation of Jerusalem as a key player in the narrative. Jerusalem’s history of spiritual unfaithfulness and its central role in the biblical narrative make it a significant symbol of apostasy.
Your point about the Protestant Reformation and the historical consequences of Rome’s religious and political power is valid. The middle ages indeed saw severe consequences for dissenters, highlighting the far-reaching impact of religious systems.
One thing I haven’t pointed out yet is the woman mentioned earlier in Revelation 12, often interpreted as representing Jerusalem, seems to be associated with events of the first century, particularly leading up to the birth of Jesus and the persecution of the early Christian church. This chapter appears to be covering the time period you are focusing on.
The transition from this vision of the woman to the vision of the harlot and the beast implies a shift in time or focus within the narrative. If the woman representing Jerusalem is primarily associated with first-century events, then the introduction of the harlot and the beast most likely signifies a later period or a broader scope of events beyond the first century. This transition aligns with a later date of composition, as proponents of a later date argue that Revelation reflects developments and challenges facing the Christian community in the late first century, such as the persecution under Emperor Domitian.
So, the first woman mentioned in Revelation clearly represents Jerusalem/Israel, given the imagery of the sun, moon, and stars (Revelation 12:1), which aligns with Joseph’s dream in Genesis 37:9-11. This strongly suggests that the second woman, the harlot, is also likely Jerusalem, especially considering the textual evidence. John explicitly identifies the harlot as “the great city” (Revelation 17:18), which he earlier defined as Jerusalem (Revelation 11:8). This identification is further supported by the Old Testament references to Jerusalem’s unfaithfulness (Isaiah 1:21; Jeremiah 2:20, 3:1-11; Ezekiel 16:1-43)..
Regarding the dating of the Book of Revelation, I believe it is crucial because it frames our understanding of the text’s purpose and fulfillment. Knowing whether it was written before or after 70 A.D. helps determine if the prophecies were meant for the first-century events or for future occurrences.
While it’s true that John did not include a specific date, the context and historical references within the book offer clues. Scholars use these to argue for either an early or late date. This discussion on the dating is foundational, and I’d love to hear your thoughts on the arguments for both early and late dating to see how it shapes our interpretations of Revelation.
Rev 12 pregnant woman = The New Covenant being birthed into the world - Real Christianity spirit-filled believers
Immediately Rome was there to "devour" this "child", IE to capture and reframe it under their rule - think Constantine and those blasphemous Council of Nicea and the rest..7 heads 10 horned dragon = Roman empire
12:15 serpent cast water out of his mouth to carry her away = something to do with flooding the zone with tons of bad doctrine? idk
12:17 alludes more to who the woman is - spirit-filled Christians not the CINO's of Rome's church-state system
13:1 more Roman empire allusion - of course there is distinction between the "pagan Rome" and the "Catholic Rome" 13:11 sheds more light on this second beast as looking like a lamb (oh holy Catholic fathers blah blah) yet speaking as a dragon (submit or die!) and causes the world to worship the first beast (pagan Rome) whos deadly wound was healed ? idk about that, if the wound was healed in recent centuries, have not pondered this aspect yet.
I think too a good thing to keep in mind is the division between the faithful of Israel and the unfaithful. "not all Israel are of Israel". If John was including unfaithful harlot Israel Jerusalem within the category Babylon / Rome was put into, I could see both of us being on the right track...
There's so much in Revelation I don't know about. Perhaps you could give your take on what the symbolisms mean in 12-13 and that would give me something to smash against what I believe and see where it lands me 😅
Thanks for your response! Let's delve into the symbolism in Revelation 12-13 and see how it aligns with our discussion.
Revelation 12: The Pregnant Woman:
Your interpretation of the pregnant woman as representing the New Covenant and spirit-filled believers is insightful. Traditionally, many interpret the woman as Israel or the faithful remnant of God's people, who give birth to the Messiah (Revelation 12:1-2). This aligns with the imagery of the sun, moon, and stars, pointing to Joseph's dream in Genesis 37:9-11.
The dragon (Satan) trying to devour the child represents the efforts to destroy Jesus and, by extension, the early Christian movement (Revelation 12:4-5). Rome, under Herod, attempted to kill Jesus at birth (Matthew 2:13-16), and later, Roman persecution targeted Christians.
The Dragon's Pursuit (Revelation 12:13-17):
The dragon pursuing the woman and her offspring symbolizes ongoing persecution of the faithful. The flood from the serpent’s mouth (Revelation 12:15) can indeed be interpreted as false teachings or widespread deception aimed at diluting true faith.
Revelation 13: The Beasts:
The first beast from the sea represents the Roman Empire with its seven heads and ten horns (Revelation 13:1), symbolizing its power and authority. The distinction between pagan Rome and later Christianized Rome can be noted here.
The second beast from the earth, which looks like a lamb but speaks like a dragon (Revelation 13:11), is often interpreted as the false prophet or the corrupt religious system that compels worship of the first beast. This could align with the idea of the Holy Roman Empire enforcing religious uniformity and persecution.
Wound and Healing (Revelation 13:3, 13:12):
The deadly wound of the first beast being healed could symbolize the resurgence of oppressive power. Some see this as the revival of Roman imperial power through the Holy Roman Empire or other forms of authoritarian control.
Faithful vs. Unfaithful Israel:
You’re right to consider the distinction between the faithful remnant of Israel and unfaithful Israel. Paul’s statement, "Not all Israel are of Israel" (Romans 9:6), highlights this division. In Revelation, this theme continues with the portrayal of faithful believers versus those who have turned away.
To sum up, while there are various interpretations, my view aligns with seeing the woman in Revelation 12 as representing Israel (based on the direct reference to Joseph’s dreams), the faithful remnant, or the early Christian community. The harlot in Revelation 17 could then symbolize Jerusalem in its state of apostasy, drawing from Old Testament references to Jerusalem as a harlot (Isaiah 1:21; Jeremiah 2:20; Ezekiel 16:1-43).
Your insights into the historical and symbolic aspects of Rome and its influence are valuable. I appreciate the dialogue and the opportunity to explore these profound texts together. Let’s keep discussing and see where our interpretations converge or diverge!
Sorry for taking so long with my response! I’m going to briefly address your main points, then bring up something I think we should have discussed before this engaging exchange:
Mother of Harlots:
Essence of Babylon:
Compulsory Worship of Political/Religious Leaders:
Origin of Political and Religious Power:
Jerusalem's Relative Greatness:
Papacy and Rome's Historical Influence:
Scriptural Support:
Given the significance of Jerusalem's role in biblical prophecy and its depiction in Revelation, it's important to consider when Revelation was written. The dating of Revelation is crucial because it affects the interpretation of its prophecies.
Early Date (Pre-70 A.D.):
Late Date (Post-70 A.D.):
Best Arguments for an Early Date:
Best Arguments for a Later Date:
Before we delve further into specific passages in Revelation, I believe it's crucial to discuss the dating of the book first. The timing of its writing is fundamental because it shapes how we interpret its purpose and fulfillment.
Would you agree?
Indeed John refers to her as the mother of harlots and abominations in the earth. You argue that Jerusalem was likened to an harlot, yes, but this isn't to call Jerusalem the mother, or source harlot. How could Jerusalem fit this ultimate label? Can you find me a better candidate for the mother of harlots and abominations in the earth than Nimrod's Tower of Babel and then Babylon? Why would God have such a problem with that system that He would take the extreme measure as to confuse the languages and scatter the people? God isn't the source of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33) so this step could almost be viewed as contrary to His nature! This was a dire situation indeed. Was Jerusalem the place from which all nations of the earth got their wicked ways from? Or did Jerusalem simply become polluted with them from somewhere like the other nations did? I wonder where that somewhere could be...
The Tower of Babel, I contend was the mother of harlots and abominations and if allowed to be completed there would be no hope for humanity. Look how dire things got during the middle ages, if not for the Protestant Reformation we very well may still face torture and death for this discussion! Rome had essentially built a tower (heirarchy) which had very real physical consequences for mankind. It was foretold in the Book of Revelation and the original Protestants all knew this and wrote about it extensively. Futurism and Preterism only came about recently (around 1500s) and were seeded by Jesuits to confuse us on the subject, and to marginalize us and render our debates impotent as we get lost in senseless weeds while missing main points due to dogmatic clingings. I don't subscribe to Preterism regardless of which ever views I hold that have been lumped in under that label,
If the date of the writing of the Book of Revelation was so crucial to understanding it would not God have compelled John to include it? I maintain that it's referring to a continuing religiopolitical system and so does not need to be viewed through these constraints. Saying that, I don't know when it was written.
Thanks for your thoughtful response!
Indeed, John refers to the harlot as the “mother of harlots and abominations of the earth” (Revelation 17:5). While Jerusalem is likened to a harlot, this does not necessarily mean she is the ultimate “mother” or source of all harlotry. Your argument about Babylon, starting with Nimrod’s Tower of Babel, being the original source of such corruption is compelling, given its foundational role in introducing idolatrous practices that spread to other nations, including Jerusalem.
However, the imagery and context within Revelation still support the interpretation of Jerusalem as a key player in the narrative. Jerusalem’s history of spiritual unfaithfulness and its central role in the biblical narrative make it a significant symbol of apostasy.
Your point about the Protestant Reformation and the historical consequences of Rome’s religious and political power is valid. The middle ages indeed saw severe consequences for dissenters, highlighting the far-reaching impact of religious systems.
One thing I haven’t pointed out yet is the woman mentioned earlier in Revelation 12, often interpreted as representing Jerusalem, seems to be associated with events of the first century, particularly leading up to the birth of Jesus and the persecution of the early Christian church. This chapter appears to be covering the time period you are focusing on.
The transition from this vision of the woman to the vision of the harlot and the beast implies a shift in time or focus within the narrative. If the woman representing Jerusalem is primarily associated with first-century events, then the introduction of the harlot and the beast most likely signifies a later period or a broader scope of events beyond the first century. This transition aligns with a later date of composition, as proponents of a later date argue that Revelation reflects developments and challenges facing the Christian community in the late first century, such as the persecution under Emperor Domitian.
So, the first woman mentioned in Revelation clearly represents Jerusalem/Israel, given the imagery of the sun, moon, and stars (Revelation 12:1), which aligns with Joseph’s dream in Genesis 37:9-11. This strongly suggests that the second woman, the harlot, is also likely Jerusalem, especially considering the textual evidence. John explicitly identifies the harlot as “the great city” (Revelation 17:18), which he earlier defined as Jerusalem (Revelation 11:8). This identification is further supported by the Old Testament references to Jerusalem’s unfaithfulness (Isaiah 1:21; Jeremiah 2:20, 3:1-11; Ezekiel 16:1-43)..
Regarding the dating of the Book of Revelation, I believe it is crucial because it frames our understanding of the text’s purpose and fulfillment. Knowing whether it was written before or after 70 A.D. helps determine if the prophecies were meant for the first-century events or for future occurrences.
While it’s true that John did not include a specific date, the context and historical references within the book offer clues. Scholars use these to argue for either an early or late date. This discussion on the dating is foundational, and I’d love to hear your thoughts on the arguments for both early and late dating to see how it shapes our interpretations of Revelation.
Rev 12 pregnant woman = The New Covenant being birthed into the world - Real Christianity spirit-filled believers
Immediately Rome was there to "devour" this "child", IE to capture and reframe it under their rule - think Constantine and those blasphemous Council of Nicea and the rest..7 heads 10 horned dragon = Roman empire
12:15 serpent cast water out of his mouth to carry her away = something to do with flooding the zone with tons of bad doctrine? idk
12:17 alludes more to who the woman is - spirit-filled Christians not the CINO's of Rome's church-state system
13:1 more Roman empire allusion - of course there is distinction between the "pagan Rome" and the "Catholic Rome" 13:11 sheds more light on this second beast as looking like a lamb (oh holy Catholic fathers blah blah) yet speaking as a dragon (submit or die!) and causes the world to worship the first beast (pagan Rome) whos deadly wound was healed ? idk about that, if the wound was healed in recent centuries, have not pondered this aspect yet.
I think too a good thing to keep in mind is the division between the faithful of Israel and the unfaithful. "not all Israel are of Israel". If John was including unfaithful harlot Israel Jerusalem within the category Babylon / Rome was put into, I could see both of us being on the right track...
There's so much in Revelation I don't know about. Perhaps you could give your take on what the symbolisms mean in 12-13 and that would give me something to smash against what I believe and see where it lands me 😅
Thanks for your response! Let's delve into the symbolism in Revelation 12-13 and see how it aligns with our discussion.
Revelation 12: The Pregnant Woman:
The Dragon's Pursuit (Revelation 12:13-17):
Revelation 13: The Beasts:
Wound and Healing (Revelation 13:3, 13:12):
Faithful vs. Unfaithful Israel:
To sum up, while there are various interpretations, my view aligns with seeing the woman in Revelation 12 as representing Israel (based on the direct reference to Joseph’s dreams), the faithful remnant, or the early Christian community. The harlot in Revelation 17 could then symbolize Jerusalem in its state of apostasy, drawing from Old Testament references to Jerusalem as a harlot (Isaiah 1:21; Jeremiah 2:20; Ezekiel 16:1-43).
Your insights into the historical and symbolic aspects of Rome and its influence are valuable. I appreciate the dialogue and the opportunity to explore these profound texts together. Let’s keep discussing and see where our interpretations converge or diverge!