146 thoughts on “Wounded to Death, Part 2”

1. Nero’s identity as the wounded head is not so easily brushed aside. Also the reference to eight heads points strongly to the identity of a mythological creature that grew two heads off the fatal wounding of one of the heads (Nero) that was well known to John’s Jewish-Greco audience:

   https://www.revelationrevolution.org/revelation-17-a-preterist-commentary/

   Reply

   1. Since the wound was inflicted upon the head, and the head wound was healed, prior to the rise of the beast, then the beast should have already had eight heads by the time it arose. As noted last week, the wounded head of the sea beast of Revelation 13 had already been mortally wounded, and had already healed by the time John observes it rising out of the sea. As such, it should have already had eight heads by the time he saw it. By the time he saw it, it had only seven heads (the wounded one already healed). As such, we can safely acknowledge that the wounded head was not replaced with two. And to the Greek, the kings are not identified as heads.

      So the heads are the hills of Rome, but the seven Roman kings are not heads. So John has not made reference to an eighth head, and John has not identified Nero as the mortally wounded one.

      Reply

2. Utterly fascinating. Iow the mortal wound to the northern leopard head tells us the authority center seat of Satan was in the wounded head of the beast / Roman Catholicism. 2 billion people being sucked into the wound, the heart place of the devil. Wow

   Reply

3. Tim, are you saying that the only way the preterists can identify 8 heads is to confuse them with the Kings? You said John only identifies 7 heads after the sea beast arises, the wound already been healed. How do they get heads and kings confused? Thx Kevin

   Reply

   1. It comes down to the passage:

      “And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.” (Revelation 17:9-10)

      Some take this to mean “the seven heads are seven mountains … and they are seven kings”. The literal translations do not join the two that way.

      If the seven heads are seven kings (a position I once held, by the way), then one of those kings suffered a mortal head wound. But, then so would one of the hills.

      If the seven heads are seven hills and seven kings, and the beast is “an eighth and of the seven” then the beast is both an eighth hill and and eighth head. But that means the mortal head would also be administered to one of the kings and to one of the hills, resulting in what should have been an eight headed beast ridden by a Woman sitting on an eight-hilled city (if we are to understand that the wounded head was replaced with two heads).

      But we ought not accept that the seven heads are both hills and kings and then only focus on the kings when we address the head wound. We must address which hill was mortally wounded as well. (Which of course, does not make sense).

      The kings are not heads, and there is no mortally wounded hill in Revelation 17. There is nothing to find here (in Revelation 17) about a head wound that is healed. And thus, nothing of eschatological significance regarding a murdered.

      The hills/kings duality is brought about through an interpretive translation issue.

      Reply

      1. The notion that heads are kings is almost universal exegesis in Revelation and elsewhere in the Bible. I have never heard any commentator contest this idea before now— and this as an attempt to discredit a view that is found to be unpalatable to the author for whatever reason. Heads do not just denote kings in Revelation, revelation employs throughout the same symbolism and their meanings that are found throughout the Bible. I am unaware of exceptions to this rule. Heads are kings/ those in anuthority all over the Bible. Here are a few verses that immediately come to mind: Mt 10:25; 13:52; 24:43; Eph 1:22, 1 Co 11:3-10, Eph 4:15; 5:23, Col 1:18, Col 2:10. The fact that heads are kings in revelation is a continuation of this symbolism found throughout the Bible and the verses above are certainly not a comprehensive list either. This meaning is all over the place.

         The reason there is mention of seven hills and seven heads is because John is drawing on the famous and well known images of Roma sitting on seven hills found most-widely known in a coin minted in Vespasian’s reign as well as the constellations of Virgo who appears to be sitting on the many-headed sea monster constellation Hydra (does this animal look familiar? It is the seven- headed sea beast of rev. Recall if one head is severed two grow from the stump of the mortally wounded head, the fact that the beast ends up with eight heads in rev 17 is another piece of the puzzle proving the beast is the Hydra in Greek (leviathan in Hebrew—presumably the same or similar mythological animals as the leviathan is also said to be a many headed sea monster in the Bible. Both creatures trace their origin to a root myth from Babylon. ) recall John’s audience are Greek Jews who knew of this creature both from the Greek as well as Hebrew traditions and maybe even from its original Babylonian origin.

         See the link I posted above as I explain the symbolism and its history in great detail.

         Reply

         1. Thank you, Daniel. If five kings have already fallen, and if each mortally wounded head is replaced with two, shouldn’t the beast already have started with 12 heads ( 10 (2 for each king that has fallen) + 1 for Nero who “is” but has not yet been slain, and + 1 more for Galba who “will come” and has not yet been slain yet?

            Also, what are we to make of an eight-hilled city? There are seven hills to begin with, and the Beast is an eighth hill? Which city has eight hills, and what is its significance?

            I understand the heads are kings in Daniel 7 (as are heads in Daniel 8), and in Revelation 12 and 13. But nowhere (except here in Revelation 17) are the heads identified as hills. This is clearly a departure from the nominal Danielic interpretation, and as exceptional, must be taken into account.

            It is true that many commentaries say the seven heads are seven kings, but only after citing the literal text (there are seven kings) and correcting it to say “they are seven kings” which is, they say, a “better” rendering. All the literal translations say “and there are seven kings” rather than “and they are seven kings.” Thus, the commentaries adjust the text (there are) to make it fit a presumed meaning (they are).

            Reply

            1. “ I understand the heads are kings in Daniel 7 (as are heads in Daniel 8), and in Revelation 12 and 13. But nowhere (except here in Revelation 17) are the heads identified as hills. This is clearly a departure from the nominal Danielic interpretation, and as exceptional, must be taken into account.”

               This should raise some red flags because The scroll sealed at the end of the Book of Daniel is the same scroll opened in Revelation 6. In Daniel 12:4 Daniel is told to seal up the scroll until the time of the end: “But you, Daniel, roll up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end.” The scroll sealed at the end of the Book of Daniel is the same scroll opened in Revelation 6. In both the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation this scroll is the ultimate source of all the prophetic visions in both books.

               Even Revelation’s name, the Apocalypse, seems to point to the opening of the scroll sealed in Daniel 12:4. The word apocalypse comes from the Greek word apokalupsis, a word meaning “to disclose or open to view.”4 Thus even the name of this book seems to implicitly point back to the opening of the scroll sealed at the end of the Book of Daniel.

               The beast is not Galba, the beast is embodied by each king of the Caesar and Flavian dynasties. This is why it only dies (receives a mortal wound) at the death of Nero and not any other king before him. Nero was the last of the Ceasar Family line /dynasty. The beast does not rise from the dead (aka Abyss) until the rise of Vespasian and the rise of the Flavian Dynasty. This is why two heads do not grow after the death of Julius Caesar or Augustus etc. it is like the myth of the Hydra where Hercules cauterizes the head of the Hydra so it does not grow two new heads every time. But again you are taking the symbolism too far.

               To deny heads as kings when this symbolism is all over the Bible is shocking.

            2. Thank you, Daniel. What is the symbolic significance of an eight-hilled city?

            3. There is no significance to an eight-hilled city. As I stated before you are taking the symbolism too far. The hills do not get doubled. Why? Because as I said earlier John is referring to two separate images which he fuses in rev 17. One is the image of a woman seated on a seven headed sea monster, the other is a woman seated on seven hills. Both images he explains refers to the beast/Rome under the Caesar and Flavian dynasties. John is showing a woman seated on two things that are equivalent. But there is mythology and history tied to each different images that DOES NOT pass through to the other. So you can’t say because the hills are heads that two hills grow up off a wounded hill. That is absurd as it makes the no sense of the image of the woman seated on the seven hills of Rome. I feel like I am not getting through to you as this is the third time I have explained this.

            4. What I’m missing is why heads must be both hills and kings, but when John says he is an eighth, it only applies to kings. John only said “an eighth but it belongs to the seven,” not “an eighth king but it belongs to the seven kings.”

               Since you believe that each head is both a hill and a king, “an eighth” must refer to both hills and kings. And yet you do not believe the beast is in eighth hill.

               That part of your exegesis I do not understand.

            5. We are going to need to back up and address this in more detail than is possible in a thread, then:

               Please study the following two links. In this link you see where John gets his symbolism in Rev 17. It primarily comes from the other verses of the Bible AND the following two images. I don’t think we are going to make any progress until you see exactly what two Greco-Roman images are alluded to in Rev 17:

               https://www.revelationrevolution.org/revelation-17-a-preterist-commentary/

            6. Daniel, I’ve already read it. You may notice that I am not addressing the symbolic significance of heads and kings. I am only addressing what the text says. What I don’t understand (notice, I’m not talking about symbolism yet) is why if each head is both a hill and a king, why do you limit “eighth” to the kings, when, according to your own method, you have already determined that the heads MUST be BOTH hills and kings.

               Please, without appealing to Roman coins and pagan myths, tell me what you think about THE TEXT.

            7. The number seven points to Rome in two complimentary ways: “The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings.” (Rev 17:9-10) Rome was founded on EXACTLY seven hills by EXACTLY seven kings. Aune writes, “[A]ccording to tradition, Rome did have seven kings, no more and no less. These belonged to the Roman monarchy beginning with Romulus (traditionally 753 B.C.) and ending with the expulsion of the seventh king, Tarquinius Superbus, in 508 B.C.”2 Romans suffered greatly during the the reign of these seven kings causing Rome to become a republic in 509 B.C. ruled by two consuls and a senate. After these seven founding kings, Rome did not have a king for 500 years. This did not change until the rise of the Caesar Dynasty when Julius Caesar declared himself emperor for life and was assassinated soon thereafter and his successor, Augustus, firmly established the autocracy.3

               It must be emphasized, however, that the seven heads/kings of Revelation are NOT Rome’s seven founding kings, after all Revelation mentions at least eight kings (Revelation 17:11). Rather, the fact that the beast of Revelation 13 is said to have seven heads/kings implies a kind of spiritual or symbolic return of the seven founding kings of Rome or more precisely a return to the autocracy and tyranny of these kings. The seven-headed beast in Revelation symbolizes Rome, the city of seven hills, and its return to autocracy and the evil that seemed destined to follow when history repeated itself as Rome regressed back to its tyrannical roots with the rise of the Caesar Dynasty—the sea beast of Revelation.

               Thus the beast having seven hills and seven kings is fingerprint evidence that this city is Rome. What other city could John be speaking of with seven hills and seven kings. The seven heads of the beast is meant to point to Rome. But the next time Rome was ruled by autocrats it did not end with just seven kings in the same way that the Hydra though in some myths starts out with seven heads does not end up with just seven heads before it is killed by Hercules. Hills don’t multiply like kings but because the woman is shown sitting on seven hills and then again on a seven headed beast, contextually it is clear the seven hills are ALSO seven heads. As we have the women sitting on both seven hills and a seven headed beast in a sense at the SAME time. And those heads are seven kings pointing to the spiritual return of Rome’s founding kings in the Caesar and Flavian dynasties.

            8. Daniel, where in Danielic literature are heads identified as hills?

            9. I don’t believe Heads don’t symbolize hills anywhere in Daniel or even in rev 17. Heads denote kings/exhalation . When John says, “ 9 “This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10 They are also seven kings.”. John is showing those with wisdom that the woman who is acting as Roma is sitting on seven hills as if she were Roma. AND see is sitting on seven heads denoting the first seven Caesar’s/Flavians. The heads are not hills—John is showing his audience a fusion of Virgo (denoting Jerusalem) sitting on the heads of the Hydra as if in the act of adultery with the beast. And Jerusalem sitting on the seven literal hills of Rome as if she were Roma herself because of Jerusalem’s adulerty both literal and figuratively with Caesar through Queen Berenice. This woman symbolized by Virgo sits on Hydra in the act of adultery and at the same time sits on seven hills of Rome through this same act of adultery. This woman in both cases is Jerusalem but the hills do not symbolize kings—it is two DIFFERENT images presented here—not that the heads symbolize hills.

            10. Thanks, Daniel,

                That gives me enough information to formulate a response.

                1) On Rome’s Founding in 753 B.C.

                It is important to recognize in Danielic literature (I mean Scripture originating or derived from Daniel) that the Beasts are only recognized as such when they arise to the state of Empire at a global scale (by which I mean world-wide in the sense of the “known world”). This is important because in Danielic literature the significance of each Empire is not in its founding, but in its ascent to global domination. There were Babylonian kings prior to Nebuchadnezzar, but he is its first king from Daniel’s perspective because of how he understands the beasts. There were Greek kings before Alexander, but he is its first king from Daniel’s perspective because of how he understands the beasts. The same can be said of Medes and Persians. There were other kings before them, but Daniel focuses on who was King upon ascent. Darius the Median (Daniel 5:31) and Cyrus the Persian (Daniel 6:28). So when we get to Rome, we cannot revert to the founding of the city (which founding indeed preceded even Nebuchadnezzar) for that is simply not how Danielic eschatology works. The first “king” of the Romans is not who founded the city, but who brought it to global dominance (Julius Cæsar). Introducing the seven kings who founded the city in an analysis of the City of Rome under the period of Roman dominance is a non sequitur and foreign to the text. They are not contemplated anywhere in Danielic literature, and to include the founders from before its time of global dominance is inconsistent with Daniel’s revelation to us. The predecessors of Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, Cyrus, Alexander and Julius are of no consequence to us in Daniel or in the danielic imagery unfolding for John.

                2) Heads as Hills

                I appreciate your response to my question on Hills. “Where in Danielic literature are heads identified as hills?” Your answer was that they are nowhere in Danielic literature identified as hills. That is an important point because of the emphasis you placed on the scroll of Daniel 6:

                “The scroll sealed at the end of the Book of Daniel is the same scroll opened in Revelation 6.”

                I will quibble a little with you on that, for we do not have that information provided to us in Scripture. I can only offer my opinion, but I understand the scroll opened in Revelation 6 (resulting in the fragmentation of the Roman Empire) to be the same Scroll opened in Daniel 7:10 (“and the books were opened” resulting in the fragmentation of the Roman empire). That of course is my opinion, and we can set it aside for now.

                But the implication of your statement is that we cannot understand anything in Revelation that might depart from what is in that Scroll in Daniel. You dismissed “heads as hills” and “heads in Revelation 17 are not kings” based on the contents of that Scroll, and yet you do not have access to that scroll. (I do not either, but if Daniel 7:10 and Revelation 6 are opening the same scroll, we can at least understand their significance in the breaking of the seals—but again, that is my opinion).

                Of far greater concern to me is your acknowledgement that based on what you think that scroll contains, Revelation 17 cannot mean what it says, and must mean something that it does not say. To that point, Revelation 17:9 says “The seven heads are seven mountains”, and from this you conclude “the heads are not hills”. Revelation 17:10 says, by any grammatically based rendering of the original Greek into English, “there are seven kings.” I understand that you join with the modern translators who assume that John meant to say “they (the heads) are kings” because in their minds, that is a better rendering than John’s. I can only urge caution here because very much of what God has revealed to us in the text of Scripture has become obscured by just such good intentions. We must not approach the text assuming already to know what it says. We must approach the text to hear what it says.

                I have found repeatedly that very well-intentioned translators have hidden truth from us in their desire to find it.

                Daniel 9 is presumed to discuss a period of 69 sevens, because it made little sense to the translators that the “messiah” would appear after only 7.

                Daniel 9 is presumed to be a Messianic prophecy because the translators could not imagine any other meaning to “everlasting righteousness” and “the anointed shall be cut off”.

                Revelation 11 speaks of two witnesses with one mouth and one body, but the translators could not understand the significance of the singular, and so wrote in English that their “bodies” shall lie in the street.

                Matthew 24 speaks of the abomination of desolation being set up in a holy place, but translators could not imagine it not being set up in the Holy of Holies, and so render it “stand in the holy place”, something the text does not say.

                Luke 21 speaks of Jerusalem being surrounded by “encampments”, but the translators could not imagine Jesus meant anything other than the siege of Jerusalem, so they rendered it “surrounded by armies”.

                Daniel 11 simply stops referring to the king of the north from v. 18-39, but the translators could not imagine an aggressor who was not from the north, so they simply continue referring to him as “king of the north” where the Scripture does not mention him.

                All of these obscure the truth in the same way (so it seems to me) that you are attempting to do in Revelation 17. The angel says to John, “the heads are hills,” and in your attempt to help, you insist that they are not. The angel (here) did not say the heads are kings, and in your attempt to help, you insist that they are. I am not an infallible interpreter of Scripture, but you can at least understand my reticence.

                3) Mythology as a method of interpretation

                I do not deny that ancient myths and pagan practices are sometimes mentioned in Scripture, and when they are it is helpful to know of them. Daniel’s mention of “the one in whom women delight” is just such a reference, for it is spoken of in the context of a Greek king who has abandoned the gods of his forefathers. But in Revelation 17, John explicitly identifies the Woman: “The woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” It is a reference to Rome, not to Jerusalem. But by viewing the revelation though the lens of Virgo and Hydra, you have concluded that “the Woman” of Revelation 17 is not Rome, but Jerusalem. Jerusalem did not at any time of relevance to John or to us “reign over the kings of the earth.” At the time of John’s writing, Rome obviously did.

                4) Scripturalism

                It is fair to let you know that I do take a rather conservative approach to Scripture here, in that we can only know what the Scriptures reveal to us. For this reason, I cannot reject the angel’s words in Revelation 17 based on myths or even upon my own assumptions about what might have been in the Scroll at the end of Daniel. I don’t have access to that information. What I do have access to is the Scriptures, and where John derives his imagery from Daniel, we are constrained by Daniel as an interpretive lens. I call that “the Danielic Imperative.” The fact that the Angel takes an opportunity to depart from that explicitly (heads are hills) is itself significant, for he says the hills are “WHERE the woman sitteth upon THEM.” The departure from Danielic literature (the Angel, delivering Christ’s words to John, and to whom Christ delivered them from His Father), is itself informative, and it is clear that the focus of Revelation 17 is on the location of the Beast. I cannot dismiss that out of deference to a scroll to which I do not have access, or in favor of a myth that suggests the Woman is not the city the Angel reveals it to be.

                Anyway, I appreciate your comments. I hope this helps you understand where I’m coming from.

            11. Daniel,

                Because this has gotten confusing…

                “I feel like I am not getting through to you as this is the third time I have explained this.”

                …I have extracted your five core propositions. You have said all five of these things, which can easily be verified by reading what you have written up-thread. There can be no accusation that I have misrepresented you.

                (1) Hills → Heads: Hills are heads
                (2) Heads→Kings: Heads denote Kings
                (3) Heads→¬Hills: Heads are not Hills
                (4) Hills →¬Kings: Hills are not Kings
                (5) “As we have the women sitting on both seven hills and a seven headed beast in a sense at the SAME time”

                First, in #5 you assert that the seven hills and the seven heads are in the SAME sense, as the woman is riding on both of them. But, you have not shown why #3 must be so from the text. If the woman is sitting on both heads and hills, then the clear presumption is that they are equivalent, because they are in the same sense, as in a reversible proposition: Heads↔Hills. This is a logical contradiction with #3.

                Second, by #1 and #2, Hills→Kings (Hills are kings), but this contradicts with #4 (Hills are not kings).

                In light of both of these contradictions, your assertion to #4 is special pleading:

                “But there is mythology and history tied to each different images that DOES NOT pass through to the other.”

                You are trying to imagine that the images represent the same thing while simultaneously imagining that they represent different things. This is why Tim wants you to explain from the text what you mean, without appealing to symbolism. Without your special appeal to symbolism, your view is obviously contradictory.

                This is the very definition of eisegesis:

                “an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter’s own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.”

                It is fairly ironic that you accuse Tim of eisegesis and then fail to exegete the text without importing your own ideas. All we have asked is that you explain what the text itself—and only itself—means before attempting to interpret it.

                Peace,
                DR

4. I agree with your position. It says THERE are seven kings, not they are seven kings. If John meant to say they he couldve easily continued that way in context it seems to me. Thx Tim Merry Christmas

   Reply

5. Daniel, you say its all over scripture and then spend your whole post quoting mythology. Got it

   Reply

   1. Kevin, Perhaps you did not read the first half of my comment? I cited several verses where “head” clearly means king/ruler/someone in authority in the Bible. And this is the SAME meaning in Revelation as implied in Rev 17 pretty clearly. Again, Revelation not only abundantly quotes the rest of the Bible it also seems to consistently employ the same meaning of the symbolism as is found elsewhere in the Bible. If you deny “heads” are kings in Revelation you will find this position difficult to support exegetically. And you will find yourself all alone on an island with (to my knowledge) no other reputable commentators who would agree with you–preterist, futurist or otherwise.

      The arguments you made above also are not sufficient to overturn this idea of heads being kings. As this is just an example of taking symbolism too far. At some point all symbolism breaks down in ANY piece of literature. You can always find something that makes a writer’s symbolism not make sense. This is true of any work of literature– anywhere–not just in the Bible.

      This depiction of a woman seated on seven HEADS and seven HILLS is a parody of two very famous images of John’s time. The woman seated on seven hills, is political satire and a parody of the famous image depicted in a first-century Roman coin showing Roma sitting on seven hills.

      In vs. 3 and 7 the whore of Babylon is shown sitting on the seven-headed beast–just as she is shown sitting on the hills. “There I saw a woman SITTING ON A SCARLET BEAST that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns.”

      “The seven heads are seven HILLS ON WHICH THE WOMAN SITS .”

      Obviously, if the woman sits on both the beast AND the hills. The beast==the seven hills.

      But where does the woman sit on the beast? THE SEVEN HEADS: This is why it lists the seven heads and kings after the SEVEN hills. If we put two and two together it is difficult to convince anyone the heads are not kings and hills.

      Why are they both KINGS AND HILLS? As a said above, John is connecting two different, but VERY famous images. Because John is also drawing on the following constellations in Rev 17 to make his statement about Rome. John is NOT just talking about the image of Roma sitting on seven hills.

      The seven-headed beast is Rome. Here John sees the night sky. In this vision his attention is focused on the lady Virgo, the cup Crater, and the seven-headed sea monster called the Hydra (see Revelation 12).41 John notices that the constellation Virgo appears to be sitting on top of the Hydra. Now instead of the Hydra lying in wait to devour her child as was the case in Revelation 12:4, Virgo now looks to be in bed with the beast. In addition, she appears to be holding the goblet Crater in her hand. In v. 6 John tells us that this cup contains the blood of the saints.

      https://www.revelationrevolution.org/revelation-17-a-preterist-commentary/

      Reply

      1. Daniel,

         ” I cited several verses where “head” clearly means king/ruler/someone in authority in the Bible.”

         This is incorrect, and likely behind your disagreement with Tim.

         The meaning of head (Greek: kephalé) does not mean leader. It did not even begin to carry this connotation until around the late 4th century in conjunction with—and because of—the rise of the Roman religion. Prior to the 4th century, kephalē means preeminent, exalted, elevated, or first, not leader (see: Al Wolters, “Head as Metaphor,” Koers 76.1 (2011): 137-153, 142 and 143.)

         The two meanings are adjacent, but not the same. Dr. Glenn Peoples defines it this way:

         “Referring to preeminence, priority, authority or superiority in some broad sense encompassing shades of these meanings.”

         The relation of ‘head’ to ‘leader’ is that a leader is (usually) a head, but a head is not necessarily a leader. Some shade of authority may be connoted by ‘head’, but this not required.

         Liddel, Scott, and Jones Greek-English Lexicon (LSJ), which includes many ancient Greek sources including the New Testament, ‘authority’ or ‘leader’ is not given among the possible meanings, which includes: noblest part, foremost
         extremity, top, source, origin, and starting point. None of these carry the sense of authority, but all carry the sense of firstness or preeminence/prominence.

         Richard S. Cervin notes that none of the Greek lexicons from the 1800s and 1900s contain the meaning of authority or leader, with the exception of one by D. Dhimitrakou in Athens who explicitly states that the meaning of ‘leader’ is medieval.

         The ancient Hebrew and modern English words for ‘head’ carry the clear connotation of authority. The first-century Koine Greek word for ‘head’ does not. This is why the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament almost never translated the Hebrew rosh into the Greek kephale. Most of the time different Greek words were used when authority was in view. Out of 180 instances in the OT where ‘head’ (rosh) meant authority in the original Hebrew, there are just 4 fairly unambiguous readings where kephale is used in the Septuagint.

         In the Ancient North East, much status was given to being first. Adam was greater than Eve, the firstborn son had the greater inheritance, and the old were greater than the young. What came first had greater status, was preeminent. It is why John the Baptist had to say that his cousin Jesus was “before” him (even though Jesus was born second), and why Jesus said he was “before” Abraham. In English, we would say Jesus was “high born”. That’s the sense of ‘head’.

         As far as scripture, head is sometimes used in the context of authority (such as the head-feet metaphor), but it is often not (such as the head-body metaphor). It is the context, not the meaning of the word, that conveys the sense of authority in a passage.

         Peace,
         DR

         Reply

         1. I am not sure what to say about the above comment, Derek? But thank you for confirming what I have been saying all along that “head” denotes someone of eminence/authority in not only the Greek of the NT, but also the Hebrew of the OT and even English. “Out of 180 instances in the OT where ‘head’ (rosh) meant authority in the original Hebrew,” (Thank you for that quote as I had not even bothered to look into the OT for examples, but I knew they were there in equal abundance despite the change from Greek to Hebrew.) In other words, the connotation of this word “head” denoting or connoting authority or eminence predates the origin of all these languages themselves. I wonder how far back this goes? I assume it predates the Indo-European language family of which Greek, Hebrew and English are descendants. I bet it even extends beyond this language family to ancient languages in Africa, Australia and China etc. It would shock me if it did not.

            So the fact remains “head” denotes eminence and implies authority. To say the seven heads of the beast are somehow NOT the seven kings is not an honest attempt at exegesis, but rather an attempt to read a previously-held belief into the text-eisegesis.

            Reply

            1. Daniel,

               “So the fact remains “head” denotes eminence and implies authority. To say the seven heads of the beast are somehow NOT the seven kings is not an honest attempt at exegesis, but rather an attempt to read a previously-held belief into the text-eisegesis.”

               You have taken what I said, inverted it, and irrationally spit out the opposite conclusion. “Head” in Greek does not imply authority. I made this quite explicit. Eminence and authority are not synonyms. While there is often an association between them, there is no cause-and-effect or axiomatic relationship between them.

               In both Hebrew and Greek, the word ‘head’ denotes the actual physical head. This accounts for the majority of uses in the Bible. Secondary to this, the word ‘head’ has other connotations in both languages. But, by default, seven heads must refer to seven physical heads (like those on top of the bodies of beasts). Any metaphor in Greek must be explained by the explicit words of the text itself, not (falsely) inferred the meaning of the word ‘head.’ Others have raised this point to you, but you have ignored it.

               When Hebrew ‘head’ unambiguously means authority, it is translated to some other Greek word in the Septuagint ~98% of the time.

               ” In other words, the connotation of this word “head” denoting or connoting authority or eminence predates the origin of all these languages themselves.”

               Nope. It existed in some languages and not others. The word could not mean leader in secular Greek. It wasn’t firmly established in the secular Greek literature until the medieval period and only began to be used that way in the late 4th century. It most certainly did not mean that when Paul and John wrote, which is the most salient point. Non-Jewish readers would not have understood that Paul or John meant authority or leadership, as they would have lacked the necessary Hebrew cultural background to draw that conclusion. Your explanation is simply not possible.

               It is most probable that Paul’s description of Jesus being the head in the head-foot metaphor (and explicitly being called the authority over all) is the reason for the Greek language later adopting the meaning of head as leader, but this did not occur for centuries in the Greek-speaking and (especially) Latin-speaking world following the the adoption of the Roman religion by the secular state.

               But notice that the reason ‘head’ in the head-foot metaphor means leader is because of the head-foot metaphor and the explicit use of the word for ‘authority’, not because ‘head’ means ‘leader.’ This is a critical distinction, because elsewhere where head is used, it cannot mean ‘leader’.

               Wolter’s wrote:

               If we look at the usage of kephalē in pagan Greek literature with these distinctions in mind, it is striking that there does not appear to be a single instance where the word has the lexical meaning “chief” or “leader”. [..] As far as pagan Greek literature is concerned, LSJ (1996) is entirely justified in omitting the meaning “chief” or “leader” from its entry on kephalē.”

               Peace,
               DR

6. Daniel ” if you deny heads are Kings in Revelation……” i deny heads are Kings in Rev. 17 because it says they are hills. Novel concept he tells you the heads are hills, and you want me to believe you ,no, they are really Kings. In fact the grammar mitigates against your position in that he tells us what the heads are. He could have said the heads are hills AND kings. But he doesnt, he says the hills are specifically mountains. Then he says there are kings. Its like me saying the dice are fish, then in the next sentence I say There are chips ( also) 5 are salted, 2 are unsalted etc. Sorry Daniel you cant read those other inferences into 17 the way its constructed. . Thx k

   Reply

7. ” to say the seven heads of the beast are somehow not the seven kings” what, ? in 17 it says the seven heads are 7 hills upon which the womsn sits, NOT kings The only dishonest exegesis here is the preterist forcing kings out of hills is you Daniel. Here is correct exegesis, when he says the heads are hills, he then says AND there are 7 kings. Iow in addition. Or another thing.

   Reply

   1. Kevin I don’t know why you think this is about Preterism? This argument has little to do with Preterism specifically as every eschatological view equates the kings with hills and heads. It would surprise me if this forum were not the only exception in the history of Christianity.

      Looking at the Greek it seems more than strongly implied to be equivalent to the hills:
      https://biblehub.com/text/revelation/17-9.htm
      https://biblehub.com/text/revelation/17-10.htm
      Now look at how this verse is translated by unbiased sources. Keep in mind most of these translators are futurists who could care less if teh heads are hills or kings. These aren’t Preterists translating these texts, are they?

      https://biblehub.com/revelation/17-10.htm

      The burden of proof is NOT on me. Nor is it on Preterism, it is on you guys who somehow to make a view work must disagree with the vast-majority view point (basically the whole rest of the Christian world outside this forum).

      Reply

      1. “Looking at the Greek it seems more than strongly implied to be equivalent to the hills”

         Your own citation disagrees with you:

         Here [is] the mind – having wisdom: The seven heads, seven mountains are, where the woman sits on them. And kings seven there are. The five are fallen, the one is, the other not yet has come; and when he shall have come, a little while him it behooves to remain.

         This interlinear puts a sentence break between the two verses (even on the Greek, of all things), clearly delineating between them.

         Reply

8. Daniel” The burden of proof is not on me” sctually it is on you, nice try in projecting. You must prove John meant kings along with hills in 17 , which you simply cant. And incidentally Luther disagreed with a majority view, hence the reformation. Dropping ” the majority view” on eschatology is a little rich. God bless k

   Reply

   1. You are the only ones contesting the idea that heads are kings. You are the one who is going against the grain of nearly every modern translator of the Bible and nearly every commentator to ever write on the topic. Burden on proof is on the minority view, not the accepted view point. What planet do you live on?

      Reply

      1. “…nearly every modern translator…”

         There is the problem, right there. We are bound by scripture, not the modern.

         Reply

9. Daniel, if we followed every ” modern historical translator and commentaor thru history ” we would be Roman Catholic who bamboozled many of biblical scholars of history. Sorry Daniel, but i will wait for you to answer Tim’s question and ill follow the rest of your discussion with him. Thx

   Reply

   1. This is not an issue of following every commentator or translator, it’s an issue of consensus among unbiased experts rather than going against the grain AND plain reading of the text to accommodate a desired belief. This is eisegesis, not honest exegesis.

      Reply

      1. Daniel” and plain reading of the texts” seriously! The plain reading of the text says THERE are 7 kings, not THEY are 7 kings as you continue to assert. Only one person doing eisegesis here, YOU. John plainly says the seven headsl are 7 nountains, NOT 7 kings. And. With all due respect spare us the eschatology is a settled issue in history. Until Luther came around and correctly exegeted justification by faith alone, the majority as you say, consensus ( Roman Catholic) view was flat wrong. K

         Reply

         1. It is clear to see regardless of the Greek saying “they” or “there” are seven kings that the heads are kings. The scroll opened at the beginning of Revelation by the lamb is the SAME scroll sealed at the end of Daniel. This means both texts are getting their info from the same heavenly scroll. In Daniel 7 the four heads of the leopards are what? 4 kings, correct? The four generals of Alexander the Great’s army inherited Alexander’s empire and split the rule equally among themselves. Now because Revelation is just a continuation of the Book of Daniel if rev mentions seven kings in the context of seven heads, what does this imply? The heads are AGAIN kings as they were earlier in revelation’s prequel—the book of Daniel. If that were not enough we see heads denting authority and eminence all throughout the Bible as well—not just in Daniel. To say “they” is not a true mistranslation as it preserves the intended meaning of the text.

            Reply

            1. Daniel,

               “It is clear to see regardless of the Greek saying “they” or “there” are seven kings that the heads are kings. “

               While I agree that the copula does not distinguish between “they” or “there”, it is much clearer from the text that “seven hills are seven heads” rather than that “seven heads are seven kings,” because the woman sits on both hills and heads, contextually tying the two together explicitly.

               No such context ties the heads with the kings and the word “head” does not mean ruler or leader. You have to appeal to a medieval Roman Catholic corruption of ‘head’ to arrive at the conclusion that “head” means “kings”, especially after the text explicitly calls those heads “hills.” You are selecting a medieval novelty over the text itself.

               The kings are never explicitly tied together with the heads or the hills. They are used in conjunction (literally, using “And”) with them. This conjunction is used in verses 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 18 to indicate a sentence break in each case. It is anything but clear that v9-10 are one sentence. The grammar strongly militates against this.

               Even more confusingly, as the seven heads are identified as heads-that-are-hills in v9, if the seven heads are kings, then the seven kingly “heads” in v10 should also be kingly “hills” due to the kings being heads-that-are-hills in v9. It makes no sense to say that the kings in v10 refer to the heads-of-the-beast only in v3 but not the heads-that-are-hills in v9, the verse immediately preceding it.

               I can make no sense of your exegesis, which looks entirely arbitrary so you can insert you belief about the 8-headed hydra and avoid an 8-hilled Rome.

               Peace,
               DR

            2. Please reread all my comments. I addressed all this over and over. I would be willing to bet a sizable amount of money that your eisegesis is wrong.

            3. Daniel,

               Please reread all my comments. I addressed all this over and over.”

               I re-read each of your 14 comments. I have the following observation:

               (1) In 8 comments, you failed to explain Revelation 17 without relying on a speculative extra-biblical reference. This is, by definition, eisegesis. You were unable to exegete the text without going beyond the text itself.

               (2) In 6 comments, you incorrectly applied the medieval meaning of kephale to the New Testament, an anachronism.

               (3) In 2 comments, you conclude, without proving it from the text, that the two images are distinct, thus begging-the-question.

               (4) In 3 comments, you made a fallacious argumentum ad populum.

               (5) In 2 comments, you made a fallacious appeal to authority.

               (6) In 2 comments, you make speculative claims about about the contents of a scroll that you don’t have access to.

               (7) In 1 comment, you beg-the-question about heads as kings, in order to cite historical data as evidence that the heads are kings.

               (8) In 1 comment, you beg-the-question about heads as kings, in order to say that heads are not hills.

               (9) In 1 comment, you made a claim and provided a citation by “an unbiased source” that disproved your claim.

               (10) In 1 comment, you make an invalid inference about the copula.

               Meanwhile, you have failed to address the argument in 4 out of 5 of my comments, and you succeeded in misrepresenting my argument in the one that you did reply to.

               What I’ve learned from this exercise is that your argument critically relies on two things: (1) an exegesis that relies entirely on extra-biblical content; (2) an anachronism. You also committed nine (somewhat minor) instances of fallacious reasoning that I had not caught in my previous comments.

               So… no, you didn’t address this over and over again.

               Peace,
               DR

         2. Kevin,

            “The plain reading of the text says THERE are 7 kings, not THEY are 7 kings as you continue to assert. “

            You are correct that the passage does not use a pronoun
            “they”. This is a mistranslation motivated by the translator’s desire. But it also does not use an adverb or noun “there” to indicate that the subject is in a particular place or location.

            The word is the simple copula “to be”, a verb The passage literally translated says “And kings seven are”, which implies neither the identity “they” or the physical position “there”. The phrase “there are” speaks of existence, not location (e.g. on the seven hills).

            I can’t tell from the ambiguity in your comments which sense you mean, so I figured I should post this clarification. In any case, it appears that Daniel does not interpret “they” and “there” as speaking of existence (since he views them as interchangeable), yet another error in his argument.

            Peace,
            DR

            Reply

            1. Derek, the way i read it is like the dice are pickles then in addition there are 7 chips, 5 are salted 2 unsalted etc. But itnever says the dice are chips.

10. Daniel, do you intend to repond to Tim’s recent comments?

    Reply

    1. Yes. See my response.

       Reply

11. Tim, Derek, Kevin. There are too many things to comment on all your posts. It would take 20 pages to answer all your above objections and I am exhausted to do so because I have to lay so much ground work to answer them appropriately. Let’s start addressing the whore of Babylon. It is not who you might think at first. Then maybe if I am not fully exhausted we can address other points.

    At first glance it would appear that the woman seated on seven hills in Revelation 17:9 is the Goddess Roma who is famously portrayed seated on seven-hills in a coin minted during Vespasian’s reign (A.D. 71). It is believed that this image of the Goddess Roma seated on seven hills in this coin is an artistic depiction of a famous frieze or statue that is no longer extant.11 In Asia Minor where John addressed Revelation, Caesar and Rome or Roma were worshiped together in Temples of the Imperial Cult. In these Temples Roma was often portrayed as the divine consort to the Imperial divus, divine Caesar. In other words, Roma was the divine Caesars’ lawful wife just as Jerusalem/Israel was the lawful consort or wife of God (Hs 2:14-21, Jer 2:2-3). Yet the woman seated on the beast is said to commit ADULTERY: “She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries [emphasis mine].” (Rev 17:4.) The fact that the Whore of Babylon commits adultery (Rev 17:4) implies that the woman seated on the beast is not Roma as Roma was supposed to be Caesar’s lawful, divine wife. Furthermore, Roma is generally depicted like the Goddess Athena as a masculine, victorious warrior woman often holding the goddess Victory (As an intresting historical side note Queen Berenice’s name literally means “victory.”). Well-illustrated in the coin above, this masculine warrior quality of Roma stands in sharp contrast to the feminine whore of Babylon which seems to be a more accurate depiction of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is often called an adulteress, prostitute and whore while also being depicted as very beautiful and feminine (Jer 2:20; Is 1:21; Hs 4:10) just as the whore of Babylon is described in this chapter.

    As stated above, the woman seated on seven hills is Jerusalem who having also abandoned her spouse in this act of adultery (Rev 17:4) lays with Caesar in place of Roma, Caesar’s lawful wife. Both Jerusalem’s and Rome’s consorts were gods. Jerusalem was married to YHWH and the deified Caesar, to Roma. But in Revelation 17 Jerusalem is unlawfully consorting with Caesar in the place of a scorned Roma and Caesar is adulterously consorting with Jerusalem in the place of God, Jerusalem’s jealous husband.

    The whore of Babylon is not given this epithet because she is the whore FROM Babylon. She is given this epithet because she is Babylon’s whore. Who is Babylon’s whore? Revelation 17 is a recapitulation of Ezekiel 23. In both Rev 17 and Ezekiel 23 JERUSALEM is the whore of Babylon. Babylon then turns on his prostitute (in both cases Jerusalem) and leaves Jerusalem NAKED and BURNS her with fire in BOTH Ezekiel 23 and Rev 17. Rev 17 is basically Ezekiel 23 all over again.
    This is powerful evidence of who the whore of Babylon is. How could the whore of Babylon be Jerusalem in Rev 17?

    If “no prophet can die outside of Jerusalem” (Lk 13:33) and the “blood of the prophets” is found in Babylon (Rev 18:24), then BABYLON MUST BE JERUSALEM (Mt 23:34-37). But Babylon was the Jews’ nickname for Rome as far back as 1 to 30 B.C. as stated in 1QpHab of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The beast and whore of Babylon are NOT THE SAME!! The beast is MALE (Rev 13:11) and the whore of Babylon is FEMALE (Rev 17:3). Jerusalem (the whore of Babylon) is depicted HAVING SEX with Rome (Babylon) when she “SITS” on the beast in Rev 17. Jerusalem is called the whore “OF” Babylon because she is BABYLON’S PROSTITUTE. From this affair, Jerusalem and Rome became ONE FLESH and are BOTH called “BABYLON” as implied in 1 Cor 6:16: “THE ONE WHO JOINS HIMSELF TO A PROSTITUE IS ONE BODY WITH HER. THE TWO BECOME ONE FLESH.” In Rev 11:8 Jerusalem is called “Sodom” and “Egypt,” because of this affair Jerusalem is also called “Babylon,” Rome’s nickname, BECAUSE SHE HAD BECOME ONE FLESH WITH ROME (BABYLON) in fulfillment of 1 Cor 6:16.

    This affair between Jerusalem and Rome is why the whore of Babylon has “Mother of Prostitutes” written on her forehead.

    How did Jerusalem commit adultery with Rome? God was Israel’s king and husband (Is 54:5). Jerusalem committed ADULTERY against God with Rome by KILLING JESUS (her God, king and husband) AND DECLARING CAESAR (the beast) HER KING INSTEAD during Christ’s crucifixion: “WE HAVE NO KING BUT CAESAR (the beast)!” (Jn 19:15)
    Rev 17 echoes Ezekiel 23. Here Jerusalem commits adultery against God with Egypt, Assyria and Babylon who later “burn” her and Samaria leaving them “naked.” The same occurs in Rev 17:16:“The beast and the ten horns will hate the prostitute. They will leave her NAKED and BURN HER with fire.” Rome (the beast) is Jerusalem’s new MALE lover intruding on her marriage to God.
    Caught in adultery with Rome, Jerusalem was stoned by catapults and burned in A.D. 70. Thus Jerusalem suffered from both Biblical punishments for adultery–stoning (Jn 8:4-5) and burning (Lev 26:9). Babylon is the “mother of prostitutes.” (Rev 17:5) This epithet is not merely symbolic as “Vespasian filled 3 ships with RICH men of Jerusalem to place them in Roman brothels.” (Midrash Rabbah Lam 1.45) (Recall it was the RICH who killed Jesus (Jm 5:1-6; Lk 11:39, 16:13-15).)
    This spiritual adultery between Jerusalem and Rome is LITERALLY embodied in the adulterous affair between QUEEN BERENICE, the firstborn princes of Israel (daughter of Agrippa I), and CAESAR TITUS , the firstborn son of Caesar during and after the Jewish War. This LITERAL ADULTEROUS AFFAIR embodies the spiritual adultery between the two cities they represent. The unique events in Queen Berenice’s life literally fulfills much of what Jerusalem (the city she embodies) fulfills spiritually in Rev 17 and 18. Berenice is the human embodiment of Jerusalem, just as the beast is embodied in the life of Nero, Vespasian and Titus (most notably, but in the life of all the Caesars and Flavians)

    What about 18The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”

    As stated throughout this commentary, the earth is Israel. Thus the kings of the earth of v. 18 are the kings of Israel. The fact that the kings of the earth signify the kings of Israel is explicitly illustrated in Acts 4:26-27: “The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the Lord and against his anointed one.’ Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed.” In Acts 4:26-27 one can see that Herod and Pilate are the kings of the earth mentioned in Acts 4:26.96

    Revelation 17:18 is a pun. This verse alludes to Jerusalem’s failed imperial ambitions both in Queen Berenice’s adulterous affair with Caesar Titus and during the Jewish War in which the Zealots wished to overthrow Rome and establish a Messianic empire centered in Jerusalem. These failed ambitions resulted in the fulfillment of v. 18 somewhat humorously in the most literal way possible—just not in the way the Jewish rebel leaders hoped.

    Remember all of Revelation 17 is a parody about Jerusalem sitting in the place of Roma by becoming one flesh with the beast through adultery (1 Cor 6:16). In keeping with this theme we see Jerusalem referred to as “the great city that rules over the kings of the earth,” another obvious allusion to Rome. Verse 18 is satire echoing the apparent irony and satire of Revelation 18:7-8 (see the commentary on Revelation 18:7-9).

    We see this satire played out in the human side of v. 18 as well. Recall that Queen Berenice, the human embodiment of adulterous Jerusalem, had an adulterous affair with Caesar Titus. What were her intentions? To become queen of Rome, of course! In Revelation 17 we see Berenice in this role as a parody of her failed imperial ambitions. We see the same failed imperial ambitions made a mockery of in Revelation17 in Jerusalem, the city Berenice embodies.

    Josephus tells us that Judaea declared war on Rome because “about that time” “one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth”: “But now, what did most to elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, ‘about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth.’”97 The fact that the whore of Babylon is said to rule over the kings of the earth appears to also be a satirical jab at the Jewish rebel leadership’s failed imperial ambitions to supplant Rome, the city that truly ruled over the kings of the earth.98 However, things did not work out the way the Jewish rebel leaders hoped.

    Revelation 17:18 most literally reads, “And the woman whom you saw is the great city having a kingdom over the kings of the earth.” [Emphasis mine.] As a consequence of Jerusalem’s defeat at the hands of the beast predicted in v. 16; the kings of the earth, i.e. the ten zealot leaders of the Jewish Revolt; were all stripped of their authority with most ending up dead and buried underground. Here we can see Jerusalem, the great city, literally “having a kingdom over the kings of the earth” just not in the way Zealot-led Israel had hoped with these kings of the earth no longer ruling over Babylon but rather lying dead under Babylon. That having been said it is interesting to note that this is not the only way these Zealot leaders ended up underground at the fall of Jerusalem.

    This verse is also fulfilled in the ironic way in which the Jewish War ended. John and Simon, the two remaining zealot leaders of the Jewish revolt, fled to underground caverns under Jerusalem to avoid capture after Jerusalem fell in fulfillment of Revelation 6:15:

    Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and everyone else, both slave and free, hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can withstand it [emphasis mine]?”

    No longer ruling over their kingdom, these aspiring Messiahs’, having been stripped of power, were literally under their kingdom as they hid away in caves under the earth.99 In fact, when Simon bar Giora, one of the last Zealots leaders, was finally discovered by the Roman army at the fall of Jerusalem he arose out of the ground dressed as a Judaean king at the spot where the Temple once stood.100 In this ironic fate we see Jerusalem literally “having a kingdom over” this rebel leader and aspiring Messiah rather than the other way around.101

    Reply

    1. Daniel, im stunned at the absolute appeal to secular minutia to explain your position. And you acuse us of eisegesis, well it takes one to know one. Unless you respond directly to Tim’s last post and the direct objections he presented to your position, im not interested in this extra biblical fairy tale. God bless Kevin

       Reply

       1. Kevin, The above post was a direct response to Tim’s objection about the WHore of Babylon NOT being Jerusalem. This was one of his objections, was it not? I said I will address his arguments ONE AT A TIME. As I stated earlier it would take 20 pages to go over all of it as I already addressed most already and most of the objections are just misunderstandings of what I originally wrote. I don’t know how to be clearer than I am being. For example Tim said earlier that the seven kings are not kings that predate Daniel. But I explicitly already said that!! What I said was the seven kings/7 heads of the beast was an allusion to the seven founding kings of Rome (i.e. Romulus to Tarquinius Superbus) BUT THEY ARE NOT THOSE KINGS!!! The beast of Revelation with its reference to seven heads/kings denotes the return of Roman autocracy through the Caesar and Flavian Dynasies which represent the spiritual return of Rome’s seven infamous tyrannical seven kings ending with Tarquinius Superbus. Rome had seven kings before it became a republic. This ended when Julius Caesar declared himself EMPEROR FOR LIFE. (Rome hadn’t had an emperor–or king for that matter–in 500 years!!!) It is like saying John the Baptist is Elijah. John is NOT actually Elijah but he represents something like a spiritual return of Elijah. Similarly, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, Nero etc represent the spiritual return of Rome’s seven founding kings (Romulus etc.) because they were NOT THOSE KINGS–they are a spiritual return of those seven kings which Rome HAD NOT HAD FOR 500 YEARS going all the way back to Tarquinius Superbus.

          If you all would read to UNDERSTAND rather than skimming over what I say to try to find an error or misrepresenting me to find a strawman, we could have a meaningful discussion where we speak to each other rather than through eachother. Please read slowly so as to understand.

          Reply

       2. We have been over the seven heads/hills/kings. (BTW the Greek of rev 17:9 doesn’t say the seven heads “are” seven hills it literally reads as follows which just says the woman is sitting on seven heads and sitting.
          “The seven heads, (comma) seven mountains are where the woman sits on them.” https://biblehub.com/text/revelation/17-9.htm As I said Jerusalem is represented by two women one (Virgo) sits on seven heads and one (goddess Roma) sits on seven hills. No where does it say “seven heads are seven hills”. All your arguments fall flat here. But none of you will read this to grasp what i am saying, instead you will all keep endlessly repeating the same arguments over and over. Apparently i will never convince you to change your mind. I am on to a new topic because you can’t see this. Jerusalem is the white of Babylon just as she was in Ezekiel 23. The evidence is overwhelming. No other view can explain the entirety of the text and also be fulfilled within the time limitations set by eschatological expectations. I see none of you responded to my original post on this. Please read and respond.

          Reply

          1. Daniel,

             “the Greek of rev 17:9 doesn’t say the seven heads “are” seven hills it literally reads as follows which just says the woman is sitting on seven heads and sitting. “The seven heads, (comma) seven mountains are where the woman sits on them.”“

             As before, your own citation defeats your argument:

             “Here [is] the mind – having wisdom: The seven heads (comma) seven mountains are (comma) where the woman sits on them (period).”

             First, the Greek very clearly says that the seven heads are the seven mountains, the Greek’s non-English word-order notwithstanding.

             Second, the comma you included in English after “heads” is not shown after the Greek “kephalai” in that citation. In the Greek, there is no grammatical division between the heads, mountains, and the copula.

             Third, you dropped the second comma after “are”—which is shown after the Greek “eisin” in that citation—because the presence of that comma defeats your argument. The reason for that comma—and why the translation is universal—is because the adverb “where” serves to divide the single clause into two parts.

             Third, it doesn’t literally say that the “woman is sitting on seven heads”, it literally says “the woman sits on them.” You are conflating ‘literal’ with ‘inferential’.

             Peace,
             DR

             Reply

          2. Daniel, ” weve been over this” we arent in your eschatology class. There is no we. Youve been over YOUR position which is,I think, is flat wrong, and is at odds with Tim’s position on Revelations 17 which i think is correct. You do understand you’re not infallible right. The pope thinks he is and presides over Satan’s church and false gospel.

             Reply

             1. Kevin, According to the Old Testament, who is the original whore of Babylon? And was she burned by her lover? Was she also left naked at that time by her lover? Now look at rev 17, who do you think this whore is since she is again Babylon’s whore, she is again burned, she is again left naked?

                How is Roma committing adultery with the beast, when Roma was Caesar’s lawful wife according to the religion of the Imperial Cult (the religion that was found most prominently in Turkey where John wrote his letters). You cannot commit adultery with your wife. Roma cannot be the city here. How did Roma commit adultery with God when Jerusalem, not Roma, was God’s lawful wife.

                If “no prophet can die outside of Jerusalem” and “the blood of the prophets is found in Babylon” how is the whore of Babylon Roma?

                Please address these inconsistencies when you favor the Roma view. BTW this is only a tiny fraction of the evidence/ problems.

             2. Daniel,

                “According to the Old Testament, who is the original whore of Babylon? [..] this is only a tiny fraction of the evidence/ problems”

                We are aware that you think that the whore of Babylon must be Jerusalem because of Ezekiel 23:25,29,32-34,37-41. What happens if we assume, for sake of argument, that the whore of Babylon is Jerusalem. Does the evidence work?

                The Old Testament uses the imagery of sexual assault/rape/infidelity of six different capital cities as a synecdoche for the nations they represent: Babylon, Samaria (of the Kingdom of Israel), Jerusalem (of the Kingdom of Judah), Ninevah, Tyre, and Sidon. It mentions Edom as a nation in this context. It also uses Hosea and Gomer as a real-life instantiation of the same metaphor. This synecdoche is revealed explicitly in Ezekiel 23:

                “Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother, and they prostituted themselves in Egypt; they committed prostitution in their youth; there their breasts were pressed, and there their virgin nipples were fondled. Their names were Oholah the elder, and Oholibah her sister: and they became mine, and they gave birth to sons and daughters. As for their names, Samaria is Oholah, and Jerusalem is Oholibah. [..] Yet [Oholibah] multiplied her prostitution, remembering the days of her youth in which she had prostituted herself in the land of Egypt.”

                This is abundantly clear that it was not Jerusalem and Samaria the cities, but Judah and Israel the nations who prostituted themselves with the foreign nations.

                So the first problem is that the whore would have to be the ‘nation’ of the kingdom of Judah, not the city of Jerusalem.

                Now, the second problem is that the whore in Ezekiel does not rule, but is destroyed by those who rule over her. But the great prostitute “sits over many waters”: she rules over many people. This cannot refer to Jerusalem or Judah any time after the time of Christ, because the Jews were ruled by Rome, not the other way around.

                Now, the third problem (related) is that the nation of Israel as a nation ended and was transferred by the New Covenant to Christ’s bride. God’s brides are no longer Israel/Judah, his bride is now the church. So if the whore of Babylon is Israel/Judah, then it must be a nation made up of Christians who were unfaithful to Christ, because the church is Israel/Judah. The whore of Revelation is named “Babylon”, which the Bible identifies as “Rome”. So the nation of Christians who were unfaithful to Christ are identified—by synecdoche—by their primary city: Rome.

                Now, the fourth problem is that the whore of Babylon is prostituting herself with the city of Rome. But we’ve already established that the capital city is a synecdoche for the whole empire. Thus, the Whore of Babylon—representing God’s unfaithful bride—in the city of Rome is prostituting herself with the nation of Rome. Unlike Ezekiel where Jerusalem prostitutes with Babylon, here Roman Christians prostitute with the Roman empire. That is why the woman is Roman and the hills are Roman. Both are Roman, but only one can be Babylon.

                In conclusion, given the parallel imagery between Ezekiel 23 and Revelation 17, the assumption—for sake of argument—that the “Whore of Babylon” refers to Ezekiel 23’s Jerusalem leads one to conclude that the Revelation 17’s Whore of Babylon is a nation of unfaithful Christians ruling in Rome while prostituting herself with the Roman Empire.

                Peace,
                DR

             3. Your argument is impudent because Jerusalem represents Israel as a whole in Revelation as well. But in both Ezekiel 23 and rev 17 Jerusalem is mentioned as the whore of Babylon. Is that not true in Ezekiel 23, must I quote it? Thus both chapters are about the same thing Jerusalem as the whore of a nation that turns on her and leaves her burned and naked. Cognitive dissonance is tough, isn’t it?

                Tell me how is Rome the whore of Babylon when in Babylon is found the blood of the prophets., but Jesus says no prophet can die outside of Jerusalem. You are so blinded by your held beliefs that you cannot accept the truth even when it is shown to you plainly. You did not have to figure all this out yourself and you still can’t recognize the truth when you see it. The idea of Jerusalem being the whore of Babylon has no problems-only evidence. But you are unable to accept it. Please read how she rules over the kings of the earth. I posted this explanation twice already. Again this is a satirical jab at Jerusalem’s failed imperial ambitions to supplant Rome in AD 70. But of course you can’t see it. Until you humble yourself, you will never grasp this text the way it was intended to be understood.

             4. Daniel,

                “Your argument is impudent because Jerusalem represents Israel as a whole in Revelation as well. [..] must I quote it?”

                Please, go ahead and provide whatever quotes you think will be helfpul

                In Revelation, the whore is never called Jerusalem, she is explicitly called Babylon.

                In Ezekiel, the whore is never called Babylon, but is explicitly called Jerusalem.

                Your mistake is calling the woman of Ezekiel the whore of Babylon. She cannot be that. She is the whore of Jerusalem.

                I will write more later.

                Peace,
                DR

             5. Derek, Jerusalem is the whore of Jerusalem? Makes no sense. Please explain how Jerusalem is the whore of Jerusalem when Jerusalem is prostituting herself with Babylon in Ezekiel 23? Jerusalem because she is prostituting herself with Babylon in Ezekiel 23 is the “Whore of Babylon.” Where do we see another” whore of Babylon? “Thats right, Revelation 17. The whore of Babylon is not the whore FROM Babylon. The whore of Babylon is Babylon’s prostitute—Jerusalem who is Caesar’s whore. Recall right around the time of revelations composition the firstborn princess of Israel literally had an adulterous affair with Caesar—specifically Caesar Titus. This is the history that inspired the vision. Ignore the historical context of that time and good luck figuring out this text.

             6. Daniel,

                “Jerusalem is the whore of Jerusalem? Makes no sense.”

                The whore was unambiguously of Jerusalem, was she not? It makes no difference if you call her the whore of Jerusalem or the whore of Babylon. I’ll explain below.

                But I disagree that it makes no sense. The Ezekiel whore—Oholibah—is explicitly called Jerusalem (Ezekiel 23:4). Neither Jerusalem, nor Oholibah are ever said to be “of Babylon.” It’s not in the text.

                In Revelation, the whore is never called “Jerusalem”, “of Jerusalem”, or “of Babylon.” It’s not in the text. But she is explicitly called Babylon (v5) and “the great city” (v18).

                “Please explain how Jerusalem is the whore of Jerusalem when Jerusalem is prostituting herself with Babylon in Ezekiel 23?”

                No, that’s a loaded question. The term “whore of Babylon” is a simple extra-biblical shorthand signifying the women of Revelation 17. The word “of ” carries no exegetical significance, as it isn’t in the text. There is no whore “of Jerusalem” or “of Babylon” in Ezekiel 23, there is only the whore called Jerusalem.

                You are making a lot of theology from prepositional phrases that do not exist in either text. The “whore of Babylon” is just convenient label that has no theological significance.

                “Jerusalem because she is prostituting herself with Babylon in Ezekiel 23 is the “Whore of Babylon.” Where do we see another” whore of Babylon?”

                Can you explain how that is not just begging the question? The text says nothing of the sort. She’s the whore named Oholibah and Jerusalem, not of anything.

                “The whore of Babylon is not the whore FROM Babylon.”

                Can you also explain how that is not begging the question? She is called “Babylon”, not Jerusalem, and she “is the great city.” The prostitutes in Ezekiel and Revelation are both named for the city of the nation which they represent.

                “The whore of Babylon is Babylon’s prostitute—Jerusalem who is Caesar’s whore …. good luck figuring out this text.”

                The rest of your comment is unfounded speculation that begs-the-question. It isn’t helpful.

                Peace,
                DR

    2. Daniel,

       As for your long comment, I agree with Kevin: you are wasting your time because citing extra-biblical sources before performing a basic exegesis of the text is eisegetical and will thus be rejected out of hand. There is probably no need for a second comment unless that comment focuses solely on what the text (and language) of Revelation 17 says prior to looking for parallels. Now…

       Thrice you have claimed that nearly every commentator and translator believes this…

       “To deny heads as kings when this symbolism is all over the Bible is shocking.”

       …and that you’ve never seen a single exception. As is my tradition when someone claims unanimity of an interpretation, I do a Google search and see if the first result disproves the claimed interpretation. The first is this one:

       “The angel explained that the beast’s seven heads are seven mountains. Many expositors attribute the seven mountains to the seven hills of Rome.”

       The heads are hills, specifically the heads are the hills of Rome.

       “However, the following verse also refers to these seven mountains as seven kings”

       …and from the commentary on the next verse:

       “According to this verse, the seven heads of the beast are seven mountains, and these seven mountains are seven kings.”

       Expositors call the head mountains and the mountains kings. But notice that the only reason the heads are kings is because the heads are first mountains. Recall my comment above. This source is saying that your #3 (“Heads are not hills”) and #4 (“Hills are not kings”) claims are both incorrect in light of their exegesis. So too in my two proofs I also showed that your own argument contradicts with #3 and #4. This correlation is no accident: your exegesis is untenable due to your acceptance of these claims.

       Next I had to go to the sixth Google link here by Phillip J. Long.

       “The heads are the seven hills on which she sits but also seven kings.”

       Notice that he gives the heads two meanings. They are hills (meaning the city of Rome) and they are kings. He continues:

       “The seven hills are a problem for expositors who interpret the city as Jerusalem since the city is not built on seven hills. For many expositors, the seven hills refer to Rome and the kings are a series of kings in Roman history.

       If heads can have multiple meanings to fit the exposition, and those same expositors believe that the heads can refer to multiple things at once (i.e. kingdoms, the hills of Rome, and specific kings), then what would their objection be to Tim’s position? I don’t see these expositors disagreeing with Tim, I see them vacillating between multiple options in an unclear passage of scripture. They are not saying that heads mean kings and only kings, which IMO is just a logically compatible variation on what Tim is saying.

       But of course neither of these disprove your original point. So I ran a second Google search, and this time met with success. On the very first link I found this reference that treats the kings as separate from the heads and hills: “There are also seven kings.”

       Having accomplished what I set out to do, I now note that the view that the seven heads represent “kingdoms” (of one sort or another) is not rare, nor is the view that the seven hills/mountains refer to Rome, nor is the view that the seven kings represent actual kings. I even found a commentator other than Tim who is willing to separate the heads and hills of v3 and v9 from the kings of v10! Even though you claimed to know of no exception, it only took me two google searches to find one on the first link.

       All Tim has done is assemble three completely common ideas together by looking at the text itself and by referring to Daniel. None of his specific interpretations are novel, it is only his assemblage that you might find unique. But unless you can refute it from the text, there is no logical reason you should reject his suggestion.

       Peace,
       DR

       Reply

12. Daniel said” what i said was the 7kings/ 7 heads of the beast” but you cannot build a position on a made up presupposition. The HEADS are NOT kings, they are mountains. How do we know, because later on in the chapter John says the 10 horns ARE kings. Why would John directly correlate kings to horns, but not correlate to heads. When something is a king John says so, and when its a mountain he says so. But you say John means the heads are kings. Impossible. They are hills and we must exegete it the way its written, not what you infer ( the eefenition of eisegesis). Sorry Daniel, your position is vuilt on a phony assumption, especially when kings correlate to something John tells us directly. I.e. the horns are kings. If the heads were kings John would have said so. He didnt he said they are mountains. You do the same thing with woman, insert your personal story. You certainly are an expert on eisegesis, you are the hill, king, and mountain of it. God bless k

    Reply

    1. Kevin,

       “…you cannot build a position on a made up presupposition. The HEADS are NOT kings, they are mountains. “

       Daniel says:

       “Heads denote kings [..] The heads are not hills [..] This woman in both cases is Jerusalem but the hills do not symbolize kings—it is two DIFFERENT images presented here—not that the heads symbolize hills.” (emphasis added)

       But Revelation 17:9 says:

       “The seven heads are seven hills”

       Daniel’s presupposition is a hopeless contradiction, as the text itself plainly states that heads are hills (even if the woman is Jerusalem!).

       Even the expositors who believe that heads denote Kings (which seems to be the majority) do not always explain why they think that, but when they do make it explicit, the reason is usually because “Heads are Hills” (v9) and “Hills are Kings” (v10) (i.e. logical transitivity).

       Daniel claims that heads denote kings but rejects the required exegesis to make that claim. But if one were to reject the majority’s reasoning that hills are kings, then one would arrive at Tim’s thesis, not Daniel’s.

       Tim’s thesis requires no logical leaps. It is the same reasoning as the majority, with only one minor difference: “10. And kings seven are” starts a new sentence (a separate, but related, thought), which is well-attested by various sources. Daniel’s thesis requires ~30,000 words and relies almost exclusively on extra-biblical information.

       Peace,
       DR

       Reply

       1. Derek, ” Daniels thesis requires – 30k words and relies almost exclusively on extra biblical information.” Springboard eschatology in spades, but in all fairness the reformed have a penchant sometimes for this. Certainly Tim isnt flawless in all his positions, none of us are, but he respects the text, which is what hes doing in Rev. 17. If John tells us horns are kings , we can realize when he uses There it didnt mean they imho.

          Reply

          1. Kevin,

             “Certainly Tim isnt flawless in all his positions, none of us are, but he respects the text”

             Of course he isn’t flawless, as he pointed out his own errors in this series. That said, Tim’s thesis may be different from the norm, but it isn’t a logical leap away from the text itself. The fact is, it only takes a single sentence…

             “dice are pickles then in addition there are 7 chips, 5 are salted 2 unsalted etc.”

             …to make the simple grammatical argument behind Tim’s thesis.

             “…but in all fairness the reformed have a penchant sometimes for this”

             This is somewhat difficult to express with clarity. Tim’s argument has simple premises. His basic—initial—exegesis of the text is not complex. It doesn’t take many words to describe Tim’s thesis. Most of the complexity behind Tim’s thesis comes after the basic analysis of the textual analysis has been completed. Indeed, after Tim performs his basic analysis, the only criticism remaining is this:

             “If you deny “heads” are kings in Revelation you will find this position difficult to support exegetically. And you will find yourself all alone on an island with (to my knowledge) no other reputable commentators who would agree with you–preterist, futurist or otherwise.”

             Honestly, if the most serious response to the substance of Tim’s textual argument is an appeal to authority, then that shows that the textual foundation of Tim’s argument is pretty strong.

             Daniel, on the other hand, cannot even make his argument be logically coherent without an appeal to a huge external body of work. It’s ironic that Daniel cites the reputable commentators, whose work utterly repudiates Daniel’s position in a way that doesn’t apply to Tim’s thesis.

             Meanwhile, when Tim asked Daniel to justify his argument using only the text, Daniel was unable or unwilling to do it.

             Peace,
             DR

             Reply

             1. Derek well said

             2. Derek, Kevin, Tim here is another place I disagree with Tim. This is foundational: the whore of Babylon is Jerusalem, not Rome. So basically I disagree with the whole article. I have posted above why Jerusalem must be the whore of Babylon. Please read that comment.

                Once you do please answer the following questions:

                According to the Old Testament, who is the original whore of Babylon? And was she burned by her lover? Was she also left naked at that time by her lover? Now look at rev 17, who do you think this whore is since she is again Babylon’s whore, she is again burned by her lover, she is again left naked by her lover?

                How is Roma committing adultery with the beast, when Roma was Caesar’s lawful wife according to the religion of the Imperial Cult (the religion that was found most prominently in Turkey where John wrote his letters). You cannot commit adultery with your wife. This means Roma cannot be the city here. Also another problem arises here, How did Roma commit adultery with God when Jerusalem, not Roma, was God’s lawful wife?

                If “no prophet can die outside of Jerusalem” and “the blood of the prophets is found in Babylon” how is the whore of Babylon Roma?

                Please address these inconsistencies.

             3. If “no prophet can die outside of Jerusalem” and “the blood of the prophets is found in Babylon” how is the whore of Babylon Roma? Please address these inconsistencies.

                I agree with Tim’s response. It isn’t an inconsistency.

13. Daniel ” who do you think this whore is?” Tim answered that question for you, are you obtuse. And he answered it with scripture ” but in revelation 17, John EXPLICITLY identifies the WOMAN ” The woman which thou sawest is that great city , which reignith over the kings of the eartn.” Thats ROME, bot Jerusalem. Could it be clearer. Your eisiges8s continues. As Tim said Virgo and Hydra has led you to a wrong conclusion. Jerusalem NEVER EVER reigned over the kings of the earth, even though you tell yourself it did.

    Reply

    1. Kevin, You did not read my comment where I explained how Jerusalem fulfills this verse, did you? I will repost it here. The first half I identify the woman showing how she is Jerusalem, then I address your objection DIRECTLY in the second half showing again how this is Jerusalem as well even with the objection you raised. PLEASE READ THIS SLOWLY SO THAT YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND. If you skim you will not grasp the concepts, if you misunderstand ONE SENTENCE you will be lost in the rest of the text and won’t even realize it:

       At first glance it would appear that the woman seated on seven hills in Revelation 17:9 is the Goddess Roma who is famously portrayed seated on seven-hills in a coin minted during Vespasian’s reign (A.D. 71). It is believed that this image of the Goddess Roma seated on seven hills in this coin is an artistic depiction of a famous frieze or statue that is no longer extant.11 In Asia Minor where John addressed Revelation, Caesar and Rome or Roma were worshiped together in Temples of the Imperial Cult. In these Temples Roma was often portrayed as the divine consort to the Imperial divus, divine Caesar. In other words, Roma was the divine Caesars’ lawful wife just as Jerusalem/Israel was the lawful consort or wife of God (Hs 2:14-21, Jer 2:2-3). Yet the woman seated on the beast is said to commit ADULTERY: “She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries [emphasis mine].” (Rev 17:4.) The fact that the Whore of Babylon commits adultery (Rev 17:4) implies that the woman seated on the beast is not Roma as Roma was supposed to be Caesar’s lawful, divine wife. Furthermore, Roma is generally depicted like the Goddess Athena as a masculine, victorious warrior woman often holding the goddess Victory (As an intresting historical side note Queen Berenice’s name literally means “victory.”). Well-illustrated in the coin above, this masculine warrior quality of Roma stands in sharp contrast to the feminine whore of Babylon which seems to be a more accurate depiction of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is often called an adulteress, prostitute and whore while also being depicted as very beautiful and feminine (Jer 2:20; Is 1:21; Hs 4:10) just as the whore of Babylon is described in this chapter.

       As stated above, the woman seated on seven hills is Jerusalem who having also abandoned her spouse in this act of adultery (Rev 17:4) lays with Caesar in place of Roma, Caesar’s lawful wife. Both Jerusalem’s and Rome’s consorts were gods. Jerusalem was married to YHWH and the deified Caesar, to Roma. But in Revelation 17 Jerusalem is unlawfully consorting with Caesar in the place of a scorned Roma and Caesar is adulterously consorting with Jerusalem in the place of God, Jerusalem’s jealous husband.

       The whore of Babylon is not given this epithet because she is the whore FROM Babylon. She is given this epithet because she is Babylon’s whore. Who is Babylon’s whore? Revelation 17 is a recapitulation of Ezekiel 23. In both Rev 17 and Ezekiel 23 JERUSALEM is the whore of Babylon. Babylon then turns on his prostitute (in both cases Jerusalem) and leaves Jerusalem NAKED and BURNS her with fire in BOTH Ezekiel 23 and Rev 17. Rev 17 is basically Ezekiel 23 all over again.
       This is powerful evidence of who the whore of Babylon is. How could the whore of Babylon be Jerusalem in Rev 17?

       If “no prophet can die outside of Jerusalem” (Lk 13:33) and the “blood of the prophets” is found in Babylon (Rev 18:24), then BABYLON MUST BE JERUSALEM (Mt 23:34-37). But Babylon was the Jews’ nickname for Rome as far back as 1 to 30 B.C. as stated in 1QpHab of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The beast and whore of Babylon are NOT THE SAME!! The beast is MALE (Rev 13:11) and the whore of Babylon is FEMALE (Rev 17:3). Jerusalem (the whore of Babylon) is depicted HAVING SEX with Rome (Babylon) when she “SITS” on the beast in Rev 17. Jerusalem is called the whore “OF” Babylon because she is BABYLON’S PROSTITUTE. From this affair, Jerusalem and Rome became ONE FLESH and are BOTH called “BABYLON” as implied in 1 Cor 6:16: “THE ONE WHO JOINS HIMSELF TO A PROSTITUE IS ONE BODY WITH HER. THE TWO BECOME ONE FLESH.” In Rev 11:8 Jerusalem is called “Sodom” and “Egypt,” because of this affair Jerusalem is also called “Babylon,” Rome’s nickname, BECAUSE SHE HAD BECOME ONE FLESH WITH ROME (BABYLON) in fulfillment of 1 Cor 6:16.

       This affair between Jerusalem and Rome is why the whore of Babylon has “Mother of Prostitutes” written on her forehead.

       How did Jerusalem commit adultery with Rome? God was Israel’s king and husband (Is 54:5). Jerusalem committed ADULTERY against God with Rome by KILLING JESUS (her God, king and husband) AND DECLARING CAESAR (the beast) HER KING INSTEAD during Christ’s crucifixion: “WE HAVE NO KING BUT CAESAR (the beast)!” (Jn 19:15)
       Rev 17 echoes Ezekiel 23. Here Jerusalem commits adultery against God with Egypt, Assyria and Babylon who later “burn” her and Samaria leaving them “naked.” The same occurs in Rev 17:16:“The beast and the ten horns will hate the prostitute. They will leave her NAKED and BURN HER with fire.” Rome (the beast) is Jerusalem’s new MALE lover intruding on her marriage to God.
       Caught in adultery with Rome, Jerusalem was stoned by catapults and burned in A.D. 70. Thus Jerusalem suffered from both Biblical punishments for adultery–stoning (Jn 8:4-5) and burning (Lev 26:9). Babylon is the “mother of prostitutes.” (Rev 17:5) This epithet is not merely symbolic as “Vespasian filled 3 ships with RICH men of Jerusalem to place them in Roman brothels.” (Midrash Rabbah Lam 1.45) (Recall it was the RICH who killed Jesus (Jm 5:1-6; Lk 11:39, 16:13-15).)
       This spiritual adultery between Jerusalem and Rome is LITERALLY embodied in the adulterous affair between QUEEN BERENICE, the firstborn princes of Israel (daughter of Agrippa I), and CAESAR TITUS , the firstborn son of Caesar during and after the Jewish War. This LITERAL ADULTEROUS AFFAIR embodies the spiritual adultery between the two cities they represent. The unique events in Queen Berenice’s life literally fulfills much of what Jerusalem (the city she embodies) fulfills spiritually in Rev 17 and 18. Berenice is the human embodiment of Jerusalem, just as the beast is embodied in the life of Nero, Vespasian and Titus (most notably, but in the life of all the Caesars and Flavians)

       What about 18The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”

       As stated throughout this commentary, the earth is Israel. Thus the kings of the earth of v. 18 are the kings of Israel. The fact that the kings of the earth signify the kings of Israel is explicitly illustrated in Acts 4:26-27: “The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the Lord and against his anointed one.’ Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed.” In Acts 4:26-27 one can see that Herod and Pilate are the kings of the earth mentioned in Acts 4:26.96

       Revelation 17:18 is a pun. This verse alludes to Jerusalem’s failed imperial ambitions both in Queen Berenice’s adulterous affair with Caesar Titus and during the Jewish War in which the Zealots wished to overthrow Rome and establish a Messianic empire centered in Jerusalem. These failed ambitions resulted in the fulfillment of v. 18 somewhat humorously in the most literal way possible—just not in the way the Jewish rebel leaders hoped.

       Remember all of Revelation 17 is a parody about Jerusalem sitting in the place of Roma by becoming one flesh with the beast through adultery (1 Cor 6:16). In keeping with this theme we see Jerusalem referred to as “the great city that rules over the kings of the earth,” another obvious allusion to Rome. Verse 18 is satire echoing the apparent irony and satire of Revelation 18:7-8 (see the commentary on Revelation 18:7-9).

       We see this satire played out in the human side of v. 18 as well. Recall that Queen Berenice, the human embodiment of adulterous Jerusalem, had an adulterous affair with Caesar Titus. What were her intentions? To become queen of Rome, of course! In Revelation 17 we see Berenice in this role as a parody of her failed imperial ambitions. We see the same failed imperial ambitions made a mockery of in Revelation17 in Jerusalem, the city Berenice embodies.

       Josephus tells us that Judaea declared war on Rome because “about that time” “one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth”: “But now, what did most to elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, ‘about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth.’”97 The fact that the whore of Babylon is said to rule over the kings of the earth appears to also be a satirical jab at the Jewish rebel leadership’s failed imperial ambitions to supplant Rome, the city that truly ruled over the kings of the earth.98 However, things did not work out the way the Jewish rebel leaders hoped.

       Revelation 17:18 most literally reads, “And the woman whom you saw is the great city having a kingdom over the kings of the earth.” [Emphasis mine.] As a consequence of Jerusalem’s defeat at the hands of the beast predicted in v. 16; the kings of the earth, i.e. the ten zealot leaders of the Jewish Revolt; were all stripped of their authority with most ending up dead and buried underground. Here we can see Jerusalem, the great city, literally “having a kingdom over the kings of the earth” just not in the way Zealot-led Israel had hoped with these kings of the earth no longer ruling over Babylon but rather lying dead under Babylon. That having been said it is interesting to note that this is not the only way these Zealot leaders ended up underground at the fall of Jerusalem.

       This verse is also fulfilled in the ironic way in which the Jewish War ended. John and Simon, the two remaining zealot leaders of the Jewish revolt, fled to underground caverns under Jerusalem to avoid capture after Jerusalem fell in fulfillment of Revelation 6:15:

       Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and everyone else, both slave and free, hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can withstand it [emphasis mine]?”

       No longer ruling over their kingdom, these aspiring Messiahs’, having been stripped of power, were literally under their kingdom as they hid away in caves under the earth.99 In fact, when Simon bar Giora, one of the last Zealots leaders, was finally discovered by the Roman army at the fall of Jerusalem he arose out of the ground dressed as a Judaean king at the spot where the Temple once stood.100 In this ironic fate we see Jerusalem literally “having a kingdom over” this rebel leader and aspiring Messiah rather than the other way around.101

       Reply

       1. Daniel, since the Scriptures distinguish between sexual immorality (πορνεῖαι) and adultery (μοιχεῖαι), but adultery (μοιχεῖαι) is not used here in Revelation 17, does that affect your interpretation? I know all adultery is sexual immorality, but not all sexual immorality is adultery. It is of some interest (I think) that your understanding of the passage requires that the whore’s immorality be adulterous, but the angel only uses porneia, sexual immorality, to describe her offenses. I’m asking because the emphasis you have placed on the fact that the whore must be committing adultery, but neither John nor the angel say that.

          Thanks for your thoughts.

          Reply

          1. Tim, thank you for your response which is more respectful than the others. The sexual immorality is implied to be adultery for the following reasons. 1) Jerusalem was married already to God (see citation verse above), so any “sexual immorality” is necessarily adultery.

             Jerusalem’s adulterous affair with the beast is implied in a few places in Revelation. First of all remember that the beast is male (Rev 17:9-11) and the whore of Babylon is female (Rev 17:3). The fact that the beast and whore of Babylon are different sexes is important because it is hard to imagine how the whore of Babylon and the beast could both be Rome when they are different sexes. The fact that this male and female pair have committed adultery is implied in Revelation 17:4 where the woman holds “a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adultery (sexual immorality).” [Emphasis mine.] This cup filled with her adulteries is shared with the beast. How do we know this? In Revelation 14:8 the whore of Babylon shares her cup of adultery with “all the nations”: “‘Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great,’ which made all the nations drink the maddening wine of her adulteries.” The same message is stated in Revelation 18:3: “For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries.” The fact that the beast is “all the nations” that share in Jerusalem’s adultery is implied in Revelation 17:3 where the whore is depicted sitting on the beast. Then in Revelation 17:15 we learn that the prostitute sits on many waters which are “all the nations”: “The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are the peoples, multitudes, nations and languages.” Here we see that the beast and the “waters” appear to be the same thing since the whore sits on both (Rev 17:3, 15). Since the “waters” are “the nations” (Rev 17:15) this means that the beast is also “the nations” that the whore of Babylon shared her cup of adultery with in Revelation 14:8 and 18:3. The fact that this female whore shares her cup of adulteries with the male beast is another way of saying the male beast and female whore of Babylon committed adultery with each other.

             Reply

             1. Thank, Daniel. My concern with your approach is again the presumption about what the verse means being used to interpret the verse. What I think I’m hearing from you is that the reference to adultery in the passage makes it about Jerusalem because she is cheating on her Husband, and sexual immorality in the passage can be understood to refer to adultery because it is clearly talking about Jerusalem. It seems very circular to me, and what is driving the interpretation is not the text itself but the meaning that was assumed of the text in advance.

             2. Tim, the idea that Jerusalem is the whore of Babylon is implied in many places in the Bible. For example rev 17 is almost identical to Ezekiel 23. In Ezekiel 23 Jerusalem, not Rome, is the whore of Babylon. Also remember In Luke 13:33 Jesus declares, “[N]o prophet can die outside of Jerusalem [emphasis mine]!” Revelation 18:24 reads, “In her [Babylon] was found the blood of prophets and of the saints, and all who have been killed on the earth [emphasis mine].” If Babylon is responsible for the deaths of the prophets then according to Jesus, Babylon must be Jerusalem.

             3. Thanks, Daniel,

                Many prophets died outside of Jerusalem. Jesus even mentions Abel as a prophet, and he did not die in Jerusalem, and says John the baptist was the greatest of all prophets (Luke 7:28) and he was jailed and executed under Herod the tetrarch of Galilee. Is it possible Jesus was exercising rhetorical flourish in His comment that He must proceed to Jerusalem so that she may live up to her terrible reputation, for she “killest the prophets … that are sent unto thee;” (Luke 13:34)? Jesus cannot be wrong, but neither can the Scriptures which attest to the deaths of prophets outside of Jerusalem.

                Surely we cannot take Luke 13:34 to prove that the Whore of Revelation 17 MUST be Jerusalem. Can we?

             4. Tim, what was the crime that brought about the plagues of revelation and the fall of Babylon? This should help steer you into the fact that this must be Jerusalem otherwise the text makes no sense at its crux. The very theme of revelation is all about what?

14. Here is Daniel biblical reasoning” Jerusalem was already married to God” and ” how is Roma committing adultry with the beast, when Roma was Caeser’s lawful wife ACCORDING TO THE RELIGION OF THE IMPERIAL CULT( the religion found most prominently in Turkey where John wrote his letters” oh ok sure. this is the greatest secular springboard eschatology trying to tie to scripture ive ever witnessed. Then ” you cannot commit adultry with your wife” well Daniel first you would have to buy the supposed secular history you just opined without any scripture accept that premise. Then ” Rome cannot be the city here” only if you accept the mythology you just expoused. Then ” how did Roma commit adultery with God when Jerusalem , not Roma, was God’s lawful wife” i must say Daniel you are good at storytelling to set up that last scripture. Problem is NONE of this is based on scripture just your sprinboard secular suppositions. Fairy tales will come true if they happen to you. The only city that reigned over the kings earth was literally Rome, not Jerusalem. Thanks Kevin

    Reply

15. Tim, i was on the Puritan board last night on the topic who is babylon 1 Peter 5:13. I was wondering if you would be willing to read this post of Dr Greg Bahnsens view. He is certain John is talking about Rome not only in 5:13 but in general about Babylon in Revelation. He says John used ezekiel, isaiah and daniel to make his case and cites the sciptures. He said John doesnt even bother to say Babylon is this or that but that he assumed the reader at that time woould understand the symbolism with Babylon, in that the arch enemy at the time of God’s people was Rome. Anyway if you would read it and let me know what you think. I think he makes a great argument. K

    Reply

16. Daniel,

    Let’s continue where we left off in the thread where we assume your assumption for sake of argument.

    ”But in both Ezekiel 23 and rev 17 Jerusalem is mentioned as the whore of Babylon. Is that not true in Ezekiel 23, must I quote it? Thus both chapters are about the same thing Jerusalem as the whore of a nation that turns on her and leaves her burned and naked. Cognitive dissonance is tough, isn’t it?“

    It is not true, and yes, you must quote it. The whore in Ezekiel is never called “of Babylon.” It is not in the text, so your conclusion that Ezekiel and Revelation are about the exactly same thing, because of that designation, is necessarily unfounded.

    “The fact that the beast and whore of Babylon are different sexes is important because it is hard to imagine how the whore of Babylon and the beast could both be Rome when they are different sexes.”

    No, it is not hard to imagine. Babylon—the woman; unfaithful bride of Christ—is Rome, but so also are the seven hills Rome—the Empire. As you note, they are different sexes: Rome (the female) is, um, on Rome (the male).

    In v5, the woman is identified as (or with) Babylon, which is Rome (the small ambiguity is cleared up in v18). So why was John, in v6, so greatly astonished when he then saw her? Because the woman—Babylon, which is Rome—was fully revealed to him as the unfaithful bride of Christ—the church—drinking the blood of her own Saints!

    But how did this reveal tell John that the woman was the unfaithful bride of Christ?

    “And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the holy ones, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I was astonished with great astonishment. — Revelation 16:6….”

    and:

    “You will be filled with drunkenness and sorrow, with the cup of astonishment and desolation, with the cup of your sister Samaria.” — Ezekiel 23:33

    It is precisely this allusion that identifies the Judean whore to Babylon in Ezekiel with the unfaithful bride of Christ to Babylon/Rome in Revelation. You think this means Jerusalem, one of the two brides of God, but it refers to the bride of Christ.

    Notably, in Ezekiel, the whore takes a more passive and less direct role in her prostitution—doting, seducing, and lusting after Babylon who ultimately dominates her—but the whore of Revelation is on top, in the position of domination and rule (v1, v3, v5, v18). This imagery is very explicit and is what tells us that Jerusalem the city is not in view (see below).

    This is why in v9 special wisdom is required to understand what the whore sitting on Rome means. Readers knew instantly that Babylon meant Rome (see: 1 Peter 5:13 and Kevin’s reference to Dr. Greg Bahnsens), but anyone with wisdom—knowledge of the scriptures, of Ezekiel—would also identify the image of the woman with the whore that was Judah, and see there the unfaithful bride of God (see: Hebrews 8). She ruled in Rome as a prostitute—really a dominatrix—with the Roman Empire as she murdered the saints.

    The whore is both Babylon itself—that is Rome—but also the whore to Babylon—that is Rome. The former is explicit in Revelation, while the latter is inferred from Ezekiel (and because she sits on the hills in v9). By your own argument the first and second images are separate. The first—with Babylon on the forehead—indicates that the woman is Roman, while the second—alluding to Ezekiel—shows that she is the unfaithful Bride of Christ (as the Church of the New Covenant is Israel). The two images show that she is both Roman and the (unfaithful) bride of Christ.

    As you say, this must be referring to adultery, so it must be the unfaithful Bride of Christ in Babylon—Rome—prostituting herself with Rome.

    The synecdoche of the cities as nations makes it clear that nations are being identified, not merely the cities themselves. Cities are a metaphor for nations. You’ve interpreted the metaphor strictly literally.

    So, even if you are correct that Ezekiel and Revelation refer to the same whore, you have failed to identify the correct city from which the whore of Revelation—who represents the nation of Israel when the prophecy was fulfilled—rules over the kings of earth. It is impossible for the whore of Revelation to be Jerusalem for two reasons: (1) because the city of Jerusalem no longer represented the nation of Israel; and (2) Jerusalem did not rule over the kings of the earth. Both of these designations went to Babylon—to Rome itself: The Rome of Revelation 17 at the time of its fulfillment is both the capital city of the Christian nation and the city that rules over all the kings of the earth.

    Peace,
    DR

    Reply

    1. Because the woman—Babylon, which is Rome—was fully revealed to him as the unfaithful bride of Christ—the church—drinking the blood of her own Saints!

       Here you have an anacronym. The New Jerusalem is the Chruch, she is the bride of Christ and the marriage is not until the fall of apostate Jerusalem, AD 70. The Chruch is not the bride of Christ until she is married and that is after Rev 17.

       “Because the woman—Babylon, which is Rome—was fully revealed to him as the unfaithful bride of Christ—the church—drinking the blood of her own Saints!”

       anachronistic again, The Church is not in focus in John’s day. Who was persecuting the saints at this time? The Jews of Jerusalem:

       33 “You [Pharisees] snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon YOU WILL COME ALL THE RIGHTEOUS BLOOD THAT HAS BEEN SHED ON THE EARTH , from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, ALL THIS WILL COME UPON THIS GENERATION. (Extend this prophecy past first century and that is anachronistic)

       37 “JERUSALEM, JERUSALEM YOU WHO KILL THE PROPHETS (Babylon kills the prophets and falls for this sin in Rev 18) (mt 23)

       Now look at the fall of Babylon in Rev 18:

       ” Rejoice, apostles and prophets!
       For God has judged her (Babylon)
       with the judgment she imposed on you.” (Rev 18:20)

       “In her was found the blood of prophets and of God’s holy people,
       of all who have been slaughtered on the earth.” (Rev 18:24)

       Here we see BABYLON fall in AD 70 why? FOR KILLING THE SAINTS AND PROPHETS ALL IN THAT GENERATION. who is Babylon–JERUSALEM. JERUSALEM IS CHARGED WITH THE SAME CRIME BABYLON IS IN MATTHEW 23.

       “Jerusalem did not rule over the kings of the earth.”

       You again are not understanding this text properly. This is a satirical pun. Let me explain as I have already done twice already:

       What about 18The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”

       As stated throughout this commentary, the earth is Israel. Thus the kings of the earth of v. 18 are the kings of Israel. The fact that the kings of the earth signify the kings of Israel is explicitly illustrated in Acts 4:26-27: “The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the Lord and against his anointed one.’ Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed.” In Acts 4:26-27 one can see that Herod and Pilate are the kings of the earth mentioned in Acts 4:26.96

       Revelation 17:18 is a pun. This verse alludes to Jerusalem’s failed imperial ambitions both in Queen Berenice’s adulterous affair with Caesar Titus and during the Jewish War in which the Zealots wished to overthrow Rome and establish a Messianic empire centered in Jerusalem. These failed ambitions resulted in the fulfillment of v. 18 somewhat humorously in the most literal way possible—just not in the way the Jewish rebel leaders hoped.

       Remember all of Revelation 17 is a parody about Jerusalem sitting in the place of Roma by becoming one flesh with the beast through adultery (1 Cor 6:16). In keeping with this theme we see Jerusalem referred to as “the great city that rules over the kings of the earth,” another obvious allusion to Rome. Verse 18 is satire echoing the apparent irony and satire of Revelation 18:7-8 (see the commentary on Revelation 18:7-9).

       We see this satire played out in the human side of v. 18 as well. Recall that Queen Berenice, the human embodiment of adulterous Jerusalem, had an adulterous affair with Caesar Titus. What were her intentions? To become queen of Rome, of course! In Revelation 17 we see Berenice in this role as a parody of her failed imperial ambitions. We see the same failed imperial ambitions made a mockery of in Revelation17 in Jerusalem, the city Berenice embodies.

       Josephus tells us that Judaea declared war on Rome because “about that time” “one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth”: “But now, what did most to elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, ‘about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth.’”97 The fact that the whore of Babylon is said to rule over the kings of the earth appears to also be a satirical jab at the Jewish rebel leadership’s failed imperial ambitions to supplant Rome, the city that truly ruled over the kings of the earth.98 However, things did not work out the way the Jewish rebel leaders hoped.

       Revelation 17:18 most literally reads, “And the woman whom you saw is the great city having a kingdom over the kings of the earth.” [Emphasis mine.] As a consequence of Jerusalem’s defeat at the hands of the beast predicted in v. 16; the kings of the earth, i.e. the ten zealot leaders of the Jewish Revolt; were all stripped of their authority with most ending up dead and buried underground. Here we can see Jerusalem, the great city, literally “having a kingdom over the kings of the earth” just not in the way Zealot-led Israel had hoped with these kings of the earth no longer ruling over Babylon but rather lying dead under Babylon. That having been said it is interesting to note that this is not the only way these Zealot leaders ended up underground at the fall of Jerusalem.

       This verse is also fulfilled in the ironic way in which the Jewish War ended. John and Simon, the two remaining zealot leaders of the Jewish revolt, fled to underground caverns under Jerusalem to avoid capture after Jerusalem fell in fulfillment of Revelation 6:15:

       Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and everyone else, both slave and free, hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can withstand it [emphasis mine]?”

       No longer ruling over their kingdom, these aspiring Messiahs’, having been stripped of power, were literally under their kingdom as they hid away in caves under the earth.99 In fact, when Simon bar Giora, one of the last Zealots leaders, was finally discovered by the Roman army at the fall of Jerusalem he arose out of the ground dressed as a Judaean king at the spot where the Temple once stood.100 In this ironic fate we see Jerusalem literally “having a kingdom over” this rebel leader and aspiring Messiah rather than the other way around.101

       “

       Reply

       1. Daniel” who was persecuting the saints at that time? The jews of jerusalem” wrong. The arch enemy of the saints at that time of John was ROME .

          Reply

          1. Kevin, you said, “who was persecuting the saints at that time? The jews of jerusalem” wrong. The arch enemy of the saints at that time of John was ROME .”

             All of this I already covered in my previous comments. Please try to follow along and READ TO UNDERSTAND, not to refute. If you read to refute you will unintentionally create strawmen in your head or you will just close your eyes to evidence and not put the time in to truly grasp what is said:

             In Rev 17 we see that the WHore of Babylon has a cup filled with the blood of the saints. This denotes Jerusalem having murdered Jesus, teh prophets and saints as stated in Matthew 23. This cup filled with her teh blood of the saints is SHARED with the beast. How do we know this?

             In Revelation 14:8 the whore of Babylon shares her cup of adultery with “all the nations”: “‘Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great,’ which made all the nations drink the maddening wine of her adulteries.” The same message is stated in Revelation 18:3: “For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries.” The fact that the beast is “all the nations” that share in Jerusalem’s adultery is implied in Revelation 17:3 where the whore is depicted sitting on the beast. Then in Revelation 17:15 we learn that the prostitute sits on many waters which are “all the nations”: “The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are the peoples, multitudes, nations and languages.” Here we see that the beast and the “waters” are the same thing since the whore sits on both (Rev 17:3, 15). Since the “waters” are “the nations” (Rev 17:15) this means that the beast is also “the nations” that the whore of Babylon shared her cup of adultery with in Revelation 14:8 and 18:3. The fact that this female whore shares her cup of adulteries with the male beast is another way of saying the male beast and female whore of Babylon committed adultery with each other.

             The fact that Jerusalem SHARES her cup of blood with the beast is WHY NERO kills the saints in the Neronic persecution. The murder STARTED with Jerusalem and she SHARED it with her lover, the beast and he also started killing the saints. All of Revelation is indesputably about first century events. I could go on and on, there doesn’t seem to be any inconsistencies. PLEASE, PLEASE read my commentary. I go over EVERY MAJOR endtime prophecy. These predictions were fulfilled in POWERFULLY literal ways in the first century in ways you wouldn’t believe. If you read this website to truly understand it. You will understand the Bible in a way you NEVER thought possible. That is my personal guarantee or your $ back. 😉

             revelationrevolution.org

             Reply

             1. Daniel, ” fallen fallen is Babylon” but you see Daniel your presupposition is wrong. John is talking about Rome. I would make the argument but i cant do it better than Dr Greg Bahnsen which you can find on Puritan board 1 Peter 5:13 what/who is Babylon. Follow this Daniel your presupposition of Babylon being Jerusalem is just flat wrong and I agree with Tim that your whole take rests largely on the adultery assertion, both of which i thing youre wrong on. John was speaking of Rome. Dr Bahnsen uses Daniel 4:30, Isaiah 21, and Jerimiah to prove it. Of course Baylon was the arch enemy of God, at at the time of John the reader would absolutely know that the arch enemy of the Saints was Rome. Of course i believe Roman Catholicism is in view in all of this.

       2. Daniel,

          “The New Jerusalem is the Chruch, she is the bride of Christ and the marriage is not until the fall of apostate Jerusalem, AD 70.”

          I can make no sense of your claim.

          A betrothal is a marriage, and severing it is divorce (e.g. Mary and Joseph). In any case, we are already Christ’s bride, joined to him as one flesh in marriage:

          “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.” — 1 Corinthians 6:15-17

          1 Corinthians was written well beforer 70AD, so there can be no anachronism.

          “The Church is not in focus in John’s day.”

          That is a curious claim. John wrote his book to the church, specifically to seven specific congregations: “To the seven churches in the province of Asia.” In John’s day, Paul wrote in Ephesians 5—before 70AD—of Christ being the husband of the church, his bride.

          I can make no sense of your claim of an anachronism.

          Peace,
          DR

          Reply

       3. Daniel,

          I am curious to hear your thoughts on Revelation 18:7. Your understanding of Babylon as Jerusalem rests largely on the charge of adultery, for Jerusalem (as you have offered here) has been unfaithful to her Husband. But Revelation 18:7 portrays a deluded Babylon, so deluded in fact that she is largely unaware of her pitiful condition: “She saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow.” She thinks she is a Queen and denies that she is a widow, but it appears rather that the opposite is the case. So the passages implies.

          But if she really is more widow than queen, does that not discharge the crime of adultery, and reduce the charge merely to fornication? Not to dismiss the significance of her many offenses, but it appears to me that the charge of adultery can be dismissed if it is true that her husband is dead.

          I don’t know to whom she must have been married at one point (and I don’t want to press the allegory beyond what it can bear) but identifying her as a widow and not a queen, even if only to emphasize her lamentable condition, would be inconsistent with a charge that she is cheating on her husband, Christ. Additionally, if Christ is truly the Husband of adulterous Jerusalem portrayed here as Babylon, it seems to me any hint that Jerusalem’s husband was dead (making her a widow) would so detract from the core of the Gospel (the Resurrection and forever life of Christ) as to undermine your interpretation at its foundation.

          I imagine if she was Jerusalem, and the intent was to show her infidelity to Christ, any number of delusions might have shown this — e.g., “She saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am not barren” or “She saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no pauper” or “She saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no servant.” But “She saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow” utterly removes the charge of infidelity since, as Paul says, “if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband” (Romans 7:2)

          Thank you in advance for your thoughts on this.

          Reply

          1. I see your point. However, Jerusalem had committed adultery with Caesar PRIOR to killing Jesus and it was for THAT reason (her desire to have Ceasar as her king rather than Jesus–her husband) that she killed Jesus, her husband to begin with. Below you will see the Bible is clear that the Jewish elites killed Jesus for one BIG, PRIMARY reason: preventing a war of independence from Rome. In fact it was for this exact same reason that Israel killed EVERY potential Messiah it had prior to Jesus. The Jewish elites DID NOT WANT a MESSIAH. Why? The reason is not surprising. I explain in teh following post as it is directly related to the Mark of the Beast and what that mark was, why it was so bad and why it led the Jews to kill Jesus and the saints and thus brought on the plagues of Revelation and the fall of Jerusalem (Babylon):

             The Bible teaches us that the rich people of Jerusalem killed Jesus: “Now listen, you RICH people ….YOU have condemned and murdered the innocent one [Christ], who was not opposing you.” (Jm 5:1-6; Lk 11:39, 16:13-15) It was also the RICH who persecuted the saints. (Jm 2:1-7) The rich killed Jesus for making divine claims. (Mt 26:65-66) But before Jesus made ANY divine claims before the Sanhedrin conflicting charges were raised to look for ANY reason AT ALL to legitimize His death: “The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin (all obviously rich men) were looking for false evidence against Jesus SO THAT THEY COULD PUT HIM TO DEATH.” (.Mt 26:59) Why? Because they wanted to prevent a war with Rome (the beast). HERE IS WHY THE JEWS KILLED JESUS->The Messiah was expected to rule over a sovereign Israel. Israel was a Roman province so if Israel made Jesus king this would trigger a war. A war would result in pillaging and destruction of property invariably leaving the rich penniless, also the Temple, the source of their income, could be destroyed:
             “Then the chief priests and Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. “What are we doing?” “This man is performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, AND THEN THE ROMANS WILL COME AND TAKE AWAY BOTH OUR TEMPLE (by destroying it) AND OUR NATION (by war).” Then Caiaphas who was high priest spoke up, “You know nothing at all! You do not realize that IT IS BETTER FOR YOU (because they were all rich and stood to lose a fortune with a war of independence from Rome) THAT ONE MAN DIE THAN THAT THE WHOLE NATION PERISH (by a war with Rome).” (Jn 11:47-50)
             “Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. ANYONE WHO CLAIMS TO BE KING OPPOSES CAESAR (since Israel was a Roman province it could not crown its own sovereign Messiah king)” (Jn 19:12)
             This is why the rich did not want Jesus to be king (Mt 2:1-3, Lk 19:27) it is also why, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (Mt 19:24) 1 Ti 6:10 says, “The love of MONEY is the root of ALL EVIL” as it was greed that caused the Jews to kill Jesus and His people and it was for this GREED THAT LED TO MURDER that the Jews were punished at the end of the age. (Col 3:5-6; Rev 6:10-11; 17:6) This is why the spiritual mark of the beast is GREED that led to murder. In light of these facts is it surprising that the Physical aspect of the mark of the beast is Roman money?
             Col 3:5 reads, “Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and GREED, WHICH IS IDOLATRY.” This is especially true of Roman money–which with the implicitly deified images of Caesar on them were thus LITERALLY little metal IDOLS (of the beast) whom these rich Jews with the mark of the beast wanted as their king when they yelled, “We have no king but Caesar (the beast)!” at Jesus’ crucifixion. (John 19:15)

             Tim, This should answer almost all your questions on the beast and Revelaion. It is impossible to do this view the justice it deserves in these threads. There is nothing like this on the planet as far as ambundance of evidence and Biblical clarity. It may be the case that this idea has no problems at all? (I can’t think of any right now, anyway.)

             https://www.revelationrevolution.org/revelation-13-a-preterist-commentary/

             https://www.revelationrevolution.org/revelation-17-a-preterist-commentary/

             https://www.revelationrevolution.org/daniel-7-a-preterist-commentary/

             https://www.revelationrevolution.org/daniel-2-31-45-commentary-the-4th-and-5th-kingdoms-explained/

             This should get you started anyway. I do a commentary on all major end time prophecies in this website. These predictions were fulfilled in powerfully literal ways that would blow your mind when you see it.

             Reply

17. Daniel, i hope you will read Dr Bahnsens take on Puritan board what/ who is Babylon 1 Peter 5:13. 1 Peter 5:13:Peter identifies babylon as Rome. Thx Kevin. His detailed and long explanation from scripture is overwhemimg imho.

    Reply

    1. Kevin, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT BABYLON IS ROME. Absolutely no doubt about it! If you read my comments you would see I emphasize this point. But you are missing the whole CRUX of Revelation 17. Revelation 17 is all about Jerusalem committing adultery with Caesar in the place of Ceasr’s lawful wife–the goddess Roma. And because of this sexual affair Jerusalem BECOMES ONE FLESH WITH THE BEAST: “The one who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one flesh with her. For it says the TWO BECOME ONE FLESH.” 1 Corinthians 6:16. Jerusalem through her adulterous affair with Caesar had become ONE FLESH WITH the Beast which is why she is called BABYLON (Rome’s Jewish nickname) for short like a wife becoming one flesh with her husband and thus taking his name (as I stated three times already). This is why she is the called the “WHORE of BABYLON.” Jerusalem is BABYLON (Rome’s) WHORE–Just as she was Babylon’s whore in Ezekiel 23. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read this link. We are going to go back and forth on this forever. Save me AND YOU some time and read this link. It explains everything in great detail. It should answer any possible objections you could have if you truly understand what is written and read it to UNDERSTAND it.

       https://www.revelationrevolution.org/revelation-17-a-preterist-commentary/

       Reply

18. Kevin, you said, “John was speaking of Rome. Dr Bahnsen uses Daniel 4:30, Isaiah 21, and Jerimiah to prove it.”

    I am not sure what verses Dr. Bahnsen is using to prove that Babylon is Rome to teh exclusion of Jerusalem based on verses that where indesputably fulfilled in the sixth century B.C. fall of sixth centruy Babylon to the Medes and Persians. In Daniel 4:30 it is obvious that literal Babylon is in view as the literal king of literal Babylon is mentioned as the focus of that verse who was alive at the time and given this prediction about HE HIMSELF. Not sure what you can eisegete off that?

    But Isaiah 21 is just as clearly about the fall of Babylon in the sixth century B.C. How do we know? Because Babylon fell by when the Medes and Persians and their allies besieged the city in the sixth century B.C. and look at this: Mention of the Medes besieging the city is made in Isaiah 21:

    “Elam, attack! Media, lay siege!” Isaiah 21:2.

    I can say 100% Babylon is Jerusalem in adultery with Caesar. If you assume otherwise the Bible is a disjointed, incoherent mess.

    Reply

    1. Daniel,

       “I can say 100% Babylon is Jerusalem in adultery with Caesar.”

       So, in Revelation, Jerusalem (=Babylon) by adulterous marriage to Babylon (=Rome). But in Ezekiel, Jerusalem (≠Babylon) is in adultery with Babylon (≠Rome), but Jerusalem is nowhere called Babylon even though they must have become one flesh.

       “If you assume otherwise the Bible is a disjointed, incoherent mess.”

       The above is a disjointed mess.

       Peace,
       DR

       Reply

       1. Derek Ramsey, So the following is inconsistent?

          Jerusalem is Babylon’s whore in Ezekiel 23
          Jerusalem is burned by Babylon in Ezekiel 23
          Jerusalem is left naked by Babylon in Ezekiel 23.

          Jerusalem is again Babylon’s whore in Rev 17.
          Jerusalem is again burned by Babylon (Rome) in Rev 17
          Jerusalem is again left naked by Babylon (Rome) in Rev 17.

          But the following is consistent?:

          Jerusalem is Babylon’s whore in Ezekiel 23
          Jerusalem is burned by Babylon in Ezekiel 23
          Jerusalem is left naked by Babylon in Ezekiel 23.

          Babylon (Rome) is Babylon’s whore (Rome) in Rev 17.
          Babylon (Rome) is burned by Babylon (Rome) in Rev 17
          Babylon (Rome) is left naked by Babylon (Rome) in Rev 17

          Makes sense. I wonder why Babylon was not Babylon’s whore in Ez 23 and Babylon was not burned by Babylon in Ez 23 and Babylon left naked by Babylon in Ez 23? Inconsistency is a hallmark of erroneous exegesis. And that is just one example. Remember “Heads” denote kings throughout the Bible and most notably in Revelation’s prequel (Daniel) and yet…well inconsistency here again too.

          Reply

          1. Daniel,

             “Remember “Heads” denote kings throughout the Bible and most notably in Revelation’s prequel (Daniel)”

             They do not. You can keep claiming this, but I showed above that this is a medieval understanding. You will need to address my comment on this above if you wish to continue this line of reasoning. I utterly reject your presumption here as an historical anachronism, and so must reject your thesis entirely because it relies on this. All the other things you’ve said (and linked to) are insufficient to maintain your thesis without this claim, which I firmly reject.

             Regardless, remember that we have assumed, for sake of argument, that the prostitute metaphor found in Ezekiel 23 is the same one as found Revelation 17. This is your position. What I showed is that your position based on this claim is a disjointed message.

             Now you state:

             “Babylon (Rome) is Babylon’s whore (Rome) in Rev 17. Babylon (Rome) is burned by Babylon (Rome) in Rev 17. Babylon (Rome) is left naked by Babylon (Rome) in Rev 17. [..] Inconsistency is a hallmark of erroneous exegesis. And that is just one example. “

             You are correct that this is disjointed. This suggests that the original premise that we assumed—for sake of argument—is incorrect. I suggest we throw out both sets of disjointed views as erroneous exegesis. But if you refuse this, there remains a third option.

             A metaphor is a signifier figuratively signifying the thing signified. In any given metaphor, what is signified is more important than the signifier that signifies it. In fact, there are many possible signifiers of any given thing signified.

             Understanding a metaphor requires a key to unlock its meaning. Without the key, understanding the metaphor would involve pure, arbitrary speculation. In the Bible, these keys are provided by the text, not by appeals to extra-biblical sources.

             Revelation 17’s allusion to Ezekiel 23 tells us that the Revelation whore and the Ezekiel whore are the same metaphor: they share a common ‘signified’. But what is the referred of Ezekiel 23? It is not Babylon and it is not Jerusalem. It is the kingdom of Judah, the sole remaining wife of God after the death of the kingdom of Israel.

             Even though Revelation and Ezekiel share a metaphor to a particular signified, they do not have to share a common signifier. Revelation explicitly identifies the whore as Babylon—the great city of which rules over the kings of Earth—as Rome, but this only tells us that the metaphor’s signifier is Rome, not who is signified.

             In other words, Jerusalem is the signifier of the signified in Ezekiel, but Babylon/Rome is the signfiier of the signified in Revelation. They use the same metaphor, but are not required by logic to use the same signifier to show the same thing signified. What they share is the same signfied: the Kingdom of Judah.

             The whore is a metaphor in which Babylon is the capital city signifier which signifies the Kingdom of Judah with the capital city of Rome. The hills are a metaphor in which Rome, the capital city, is the signifier for the Roman Empire. These are separate from the seven heads of the dragon and the eighth king, which signify other things.

             In Ezekiel, Jerusalem is synecdoche for the Kingdom of Judah (centered in Jerusalem) which whored itself to the Chaldeans (centered on Babylon). In Revelation, Babylon is synecdoche for the Kingdom of Judah (centered in Rome), which whored itself to the Roman Empire (centered on Rome).

             Your claim that this is adultery—a one flesh joining—only supports this notion that the Kingdom of Judah and Roman Empire are one flesh, sharing the same city and ruling together with the beast for one hour.

             The only thing left to do is identify what the signified—Kingdom of Judah—is at the time of the fulfillment of this prophecy. This is the Bride of Christ, not the non-Christian Jews.

             Peace,
             DR

             Reply

       2. Derek, You said, “The dating of Revelation 17 simply isn’t important, because Jesus was already the bridegroom and the church his bride long before John wrote a single word of Revelation.”

          When was the wedding between Christ and the New Jerusalem in relation to Rev 17? It was after was it not? 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.

          Kevin was concerned about polygamy here. Maybe you are not as concerned, but it looks like you both might want to sort this out. Was Christ a polygamist? For me it seems Christ’s old bride Jerusalem committed adultery and was killed by stoning and burning. Then Jesus married his new Bride the New Jerusalem which is the Church in AD 70 once his old bride dies. Makes sense to me.

          Reply

          1. Daniel,

             “Kevin was concerned about polygamy here. Maybe you are not as concerned, but it looks like you both might want to sort this out. [..] Kevin was concerned about polygamy here.”

             I don’t see a problem. There isn’t anything to sort out. If Kevin has a problem, he can address that with you.

             Jesus himself said there was no literal marriage in heaven. Jesus is not literally marrying a city. New Jerusalem is synecdoche for the church, just as (Old) Jerusalem was synecdoche for nation of Judah. Jesus was the bridegroom and only his followers were and are his bride.

             “For me it seems Christ’s old bride Jerusalem committed adultery and was killed by stoning and burning.”

             Why would you say that Christ’s bride was Old Jerusalem?

             Peace,
             DR

             Reply

19. Daniel” i can say 100% Babylon is Jerusalem” i have no doubt you have assented to that position 100%. But it doesnt make you right., Dr Bahnsen is 100% Babylon is Rome. I put his position out there to see if you would read it, you didnt. I can say 100% that Daniel is convinced of his position, im 100% convinced of mine. Someoneis 100% wrong. . Unfortunately i believe your argument is springboard eschatology heavily realiant on secular symbolism and secular history trying to be connected to scripture. . Tim exposed some of it with the challenge to your adultery position. The biggest thing to me is you exchange they for there. Again proof that you have to do mental gymnastics to purport your faulty position. You continued ” if you assume otherwise the bible is disjointed, an incoherent mess. ” hilarious, given to this hyperbole. Iow agree with me or the bible wont make sense to you. Simply heads are hills according to John and not Kings, because he said so. Im a 100% sure of that.

    Reply

    1. Kevin, “Unfortunately i believe your argument is springboard eschatology heavily realiant on secular symbolism and secular history trying to be connected to scripture.”

       John wrote of his time, did he not? Those symbols were prominent elements of HIS TIME and culture and the culture of his audience. If you remove the Bible from its context (i.e. history, current events, culture and religion), it CANNOT be understood. Test me on this. Read my commentary, check my sources, try to disprove this idea. You will find it VERY, VERY difficult. 🙂 revelationrevolution.org

       Reply

20. ” John wrote of his time…. Those symbols were prominent elements …….” indeed they were. In fact he was so comfortable with his audience that he doesnt even tell them who Babylon the great was. Why Daniel?! Because he knew they understood it was Rome the srch enemy of God ” of his time” in fact as Peter in 5:13 he knew the Roman police were out for Christians and he was protecting them by using Babylon as symbolism. You see Daniel” if YOU remove the bible from its context ” and John and Peter from theirs , you’re left with it well as you would say the bible ” it cant be understood ” thank you for the discussion and any harshnesz you may have felt none was intended. God bless you kevin

    Reply

21. Daniel, ” try to disprove my idea ” i re read your link. 2 things must be proven for your theory to be true. You must prove that Jerusalem was engaged in ADULTERY with Rome, and then they become one flesh which qualifies Jerusalem to share in the title Babylon the great. You dismiss that John’s reference to Babylon the great is a direct refelrence to Daniel 4:30 and Isaiah 21:9,and Jeremiah. Again notice John doesnt say Babylon is this or that because the people to whom he was writing knew the OT and would understand his reference to Babylon the great. Again Rome was the arch enemy of God at this time. Both John and Peter understood that to directly identify Rome would be bad for Christians at that time. Also i am waiting to your response to Tim’ s last post which i believes mitigates immensely against the charge of adultry, the charge on which your whole position rest. Do you plan on answering his post? Thx Kevin

    Reply

    1. Kevin, Which post are you referring to that I have not responded to? I scrolled up and see that I have responded to all of Tim’s last several comments.

       Reply

22. Daniel, his Dec 1, 8:06 AM. I think its a weighty objection. Maybe i missed it, but i see non response from you. K

    Reply

    1. Kevin, Not sure why it is not posted for you to see but this is what I responded pasted here:

       Your comment is awaiting moderation.
       I see your point. However, Jerusalem had committed adultery with Caesar PRIOR to killing Jesus and it was for THAT reason (her desire to have Ceasar as her king rather than Jesus–her husband) that she killed Jesus, her husband to begin with. Below you will see the Bible is clear that the Jewish elites killed Jesus for one BIG, PRIMARY reason: preventing a war of independence from Rome. In fact it was for this exact same reason that Israel killed EVERY potential Messiah it had prior to Jesus. The Jewish elites DID NOT WANT a MESSIAH. Why? The reason is not surprising. I explain in teh following post as it is directly related to the Mark of the Beast and what that mark was, why it was so bad and why it led the Jews to kill Jesus and the saints and thus brought on the plagues of Revelation and the fall of Jerusalem (Babylon):

       The Bible teaches us that the rich people of Jerusalem killed Jesus: “Now listen, you RICH people ….YOU have condemned and murdered the innocent one [Christ], who was not opposing you.” (Jm 5:1-6; Lk 11:39, 16:13-15) It was also the RICH who persecuted the saints. (Jm 2:1-7) The rich killed Jesus for making divine claims. (Mt 26:65-66) But before Jesus made ANY divine claims before the Sanhedrin conflicting charges were raised to look for ANY reason AT ALL to legitimize His death: “The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin (all obviously rich men) were looking for false evidence against Jesus SO THAT THEY COULD PUT HIM TO DEATH.” (.Mt 26:59) Why? Because they wanted to prevent a war with Rome (the beast). HERE IS WHY THE JEWS KILLED JESUS->The Messiah was expected to rule over a sovereign Israel. Israel was a Roman province so if Israel made Jesus king this would trigger a war. A war would result in pillaging and destruction of property invariably leaving the rich penniless, also the Temple, the source of their income, could be destroyed:
       “Then the chief priests and Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. “What are we doing?” “This man is performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, AND THEN THE ROMANS WILL COME AND TAKE AWAY BOTH OUR TEMPLE (by destroying it) AND OUR NATION (by war).” Then Caiaphas who was high priest spoke up, “You know nothing at all! You do not realize that IT IS BETTER FOR YOU (because they were all rich and stood to lose a fortune with a war of independence from Rome) THAT ONE MAN DIE THAN THAT THE WHOLE NATION PERISH (by a war with Rome).” (Jn 11:47-50)
       “Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. ANYONE WHO CLAIMS TO BE KING OPPOSES CAESAR (since Israel was a Roman province it could not crown its own sovereign Messiah king)” (Jn 19:12)
       This is why the rich did not want Jesus to be king (Mt 2:1-3, Lk 19:27) it is also why, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (Mt 19:24) 1 Ti 6:10 says, “The love of MONEY is the root of ALL EVIL” as it was greed that caused the Jews to kill Jesus and His people and it was for this GREED THAT LED TO MURDER that the Jews were punished at the end of the age. (Col 3:5-6; Rev 6:10-11; 17:6) This is why the spiritual mark of the beast is GREED that led to murder. In light of these facts is it surprising that the Physical aspect of the mark of the beast is Roman money?
       Col 3:5 reads, “Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and GREED, WHICH IS IDOLATRY.” This is especially true of Roman money–which with the implicitly deified images of Caesar on them were thus LITERALLY little metal IDOLS (of the beast) whom these rich Jews with the mark of the beast wanted as their king when they yelled, “We have no king but Caesar (the beast)!” at Jesus’ crucifixion. (John 19:15)

       Tim, This should answer almost all your questions on the beast and Revelaion. It is impossible to do this view the justice it deserves in these threads. There is nothing like this on the planet as far as ambundance of evidence and Biblical clarity. It may be the case that this idea has no problems at all? (I can’t think of any right now, anyway.)

       https://www.revelationrevolution.org/revelation-13-a-preterist-commentary/

       https://www.revelationrevolution.org/revelation-17-a-preterist-commentary/

       https://www.revelationrevolution.org/daniel-7-a-preterist-commentary/

       https://www.revelationrevolution.org/daniel-2-31-45-commentary-the-4th-and-5th-kingdoms-explained/

       This should get you started anyway. I do a commentary on all major end time prophecies in this website. These predictions were fulfilled in powerfully literal ways that would blow your mind when you see it.

       Reply

23. Kevin, I pasted my response above. It says it is awaiting moderation.

    Reply

24. Not sure why my response is not showing up. But I do not see it here both when I initially responded and when I pasted my response as well for you to see. Send me an email at socialmorais@yahoo.com and I will paste my reply there.

    Reply

25. Daniel, you say Jerusalem’s husband to begin with is Christ. However the scripture says the CHURCH is the bride of Christ?! Can you explain this?

    Reply

    1. Kevin, Are you denying the trinity?

       Even if you deny the trinity this objection still does not work. Here’s why. If you read my commentaries and scroll through the footnotes of every page you will see a wide array of sources from the Greco-Roman and Jewish history, Dead Sea Scrolls, extra canonical Jewish and Christian texts, books on the mythology and culture of all Israel’s surrounding cultures especially focused on the places they have been like Egypt, ugarit, and Mesopotamia and any other field of study that could provide insight into this text. My approach has been the more you know, the more likely you will be able to understand the history, culture and religion of the ancient Israelites. And the more you know here the better you will be able to understand the Bible as a whole. This, I think, is where this study can come in handy. If we look at the Hebrew of the Bible Among the various names for God found in the Bible, two names frequently appear: El and YHWH. The ancient Canaanites who occupied Palestine prior to the Hebrew conquest under Joshua after the Exodus believed in a Pantheon of gods in which El was the father of the pantheon and YHWH was one of his sons. It has been my long-held belief that YHWH is Israel’s God most directly, El is YHWH’s Father. YHWH is, I believe, the pre incarnate Christ who is Israel’s god and creator. We see YHWH specifically named as Israel’s husband, Creator and Redeemer (who redeemed Israel? Jesus, right, by the cross) in the Hebrew of Isaiah 54:5: https://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/54-5.htm

       Here we see YhWH specifically named as Israel’s HUSBAND, CREATOR and redeemer. We know Jesus was Israel’s creator most specifically, and according to John 1:1 Jesus was also most specifically Israel’s creator:
       In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

       It now logically follows that YHWH = Word of God=israel’s creator=Jesus=israel’s husband. Now this is where understanding that Jerusalem is Babylon’s whore is so important. The whore of Babylon is burned in revelation by fire from heaven and stoned (by hail stones in rev 16) causing her fall. Why is that significant? Because stoning and burning were the prescribed punishments for adultery.
       According to the Law of Moses, the punishment for adultery is stoning (John 8:4-5, Ezekiel 16:38-40). And burning is the prescribed punishment for the daughter of a priest who is found to be a prostitute (Leviticus 21:9). Thus in fulfillment of Ezekiel 16:38 first-century jerusalem as Babylon’s prostitute in rev suffered from both punishments for adultery prescribed by the Law of Moses—stoning (John 8:4-5, Ezekiel 16:38-40) and burning (Leviticus 21:9). After YHWH’s first wife is stoned for adultery, he marries his new wife, the Church which is the “New Jerusalem” in rev 21.

       Reply

26. Daniel” you deny the Trinity ” ummm no. What i deny is the place Jerilusalem was married to Christ as you said, when scripture clearly says THE CHIRCH is the bride of Christ and he is the bridegroom. You have Christ married to the Jerusalem. Thats accusing the Lord of bigamy. You said ” if you look at my commentaries……. greek mythology and culture” this is an interesting you have this presupposition that some comprehensive study of all these categories including greek mythology and culture somehow qualifies you as an expert i guess on eschatology, and your position as being infallible, yet you failed to answer Tim’s challenge to your adultery claim, you use they for there are, and you have Christ our Lord commiting bigamy saying he was Jerusalem’s husband, when scripture is crystal clear THE CHURCH is the bride of Christ. You say John says heads are hills and Kings, when he doesnt says they are hills. I dont buy your eschatology, and i believe it is you who the bible makes no sense to, the very thing you have acused the orhers here of.. k

    Reply

    1. Kevin, Let’s assume Christ was married to the Church and Jerusalem at the same time—which I doubt. Where in the Law of Moses or Bible is polygamy outlawed? Now on to my next point. Why is the Church called “New” Jerusalem in Rev 21? Because the old Jerusalem was killed by stoning and burning for her adultery against her husband, Jesus. Please review my above post where I conclusively show YHWH was Jerusalem and Israel’s Husband, Redeemer (through the cross) AND creator. I don’t think you are fully processing the weight of what is stated there. The verse I cited proves my point. How can this be argued with? When you are right there is evidence piled up to the heavens and things are consistent and things make sense. When you are wrong there is problems piled to the heavens and things break down on a scrutiny. I think I have shown what side my view is on when all your objections have been decidedly answered.

       Reply

       1. Daniel,

          “Let’s assume Christ was married to the Church and Jerusalem at the same time—which I doubt. “

          Based on what?

          Peace,
          DR

          Reply

          1. Derek, When did Christianity become a religion? Give me a year. It’s not a coincidence because another event happened that exact same year at that exact same moment.

             Reply

             1. Daniel,

                “When did Christianity become a religion? Give me a year. It’s not a coincidence because another event happened that exact same year at that exact same moment.”

                This is another loaded statement.

                The Bible isn’t explicit on this, but I believe he became the king of the Jews on the day his father died (which is why only his mother was at the wedding feast and Joseph is missing from the narrative after that point). Regardless, Jesus was unambiguously the king of the kingdom of Judah no later than the moment he was anointed by the Holy Spirit at his baptism. Thus, from the time Jesus started his ministry, he was the king of the Jews. His followers are his church, his bride. He called himself the bridegroom during his earthly ministry.

                What happened in AD70 is that Jesus cut off the remaining unbelieving Jews from the root (himself). He ended the Old Covenant. But at no point from the beginning of Christ’s ministry to present day has the Kingdom of Judah been centered on anything but Christ. This is clear throughout the New Testament.

                The dating of Revelation 17 simply isn’t important, because Jesus was already the bridegroom and the church his bride long before John wrote a single word of Revelation.

                Peace,
                DR

27. Should be he doesn’t say they are kings

    Reply

28. To believe Daniel on 17:9, one has to introduce adultery and gender into a passage telling us the heads are hills and the woman sits on them. Its a location, an obvious one to John. There is no adultery or gender change here mentioned at all. , but he uses both to change the location ( meaning). Then we have to believe Jesus was married to the place Jerusalem when scripture says hes the bridegroom and the church is his bride. Revelation 17 is about the Angel showing John this ” i will show unto thee THE judgement of the great whorethat sitteth upon many waters” he goes on to describe the woman to be judged. She is BABYLON THE GREAT ” i saw a WOMAN drunken with the blood of the saints” still nothing about specifics like Ceaser, mythology, adultery. Nothing. It simply tells us a location Rome and she is to be judged. But Daniel would have us to not believe our lying eyes, its really about another story, involving Caesar, adultery, Jerusalem( not Rome) , there are really meaning being they are, heads are not hills even though John says heads are hills. Great tale, but it obliterates the clear reference in Revelation 17, for another narrative that isnt the subject of Revelation at all.

    Reply

    1. Kevin, You will never understand this text because you are not open to learning the history surrounding Revelation. The affair between Caesar Titus and Queen Berenice, the fact that the Jews killed Jesus because they wanted Caesar (the beast) as king–an obvious adulterous affair since YHWH was married to Jerusalem, the relationship between Revelation 17 and Ezekiel 23, the fact that heads have a CLEAR and explicit Biblical precidence both in the Old AND New Testament denoting kings/exalted ones and NOTHING ELSE, the obvious adultery between the beast and his whore who clearly shares “her cup of adulerty” with the beast, her lover. The fact that Jesus says, “No prophet can die outside of Jerusalem” and yet the “blood of the prophets is found in Babylon” and the fact that “God judged Babylon with the judgment she imposed on others” and Babylon fell BECAUSE she killed the saints and prophets. I could go on and on and on…The evidence all points in one direction ONLY. You shut your eyes to the truth not even realizing that you are only seeing a small fragment of this evidence that I have presented above which no one has poked a single hole in any singular point I made. You will never understand this text because your heart is too hard and you worship an idol which is your eisegesis. When you die you will see that you are wrong when God explains this text to you using the same points I already made and more (BTW there is even more evidence which I include in my commentary). https://www.revelationrevolution.org/revelation-17-a-preterist-commentary/ Will you believe it then? I wonder if you will think, “Well, the devil disguises himself as an angel of light” and you will believe, therefore, God is Satan. I am very confident this will happen, because the case is so multifaceted and overwhelming and you cannot accept or hear it even if God himself tells you!!

       Reply

       1. Daniel,

          “You will never understand this text because you are not open to learning the history surrounding Revelation. [..] the fact that heads have a CLEAR and explicit Biblical precidence both in the Old AND New Testament denoting kings/exalted ones and NOTHING ELSE”

          You say we cannot understand the text because we are not open to learning about history, but your statement on the heads being kings is an anachronism. You are not open to learning about history of the Greek term.

          “The evidence all points in one direction ONLY. You shut your eyes to the truth”

          Jesus said “No prophet can die outside of Jerusalem”, but many prophets have died outside of Jerusalem.

          “The evidence all points in one direction ONLY. You shut your eyes to the truth”

          John says that the heads are hills.

          “The evidence all points in one direction ONLY. You shut your eyes to the truth”

          The kingdom of Israel—Oholah—was killed in 720BC. The kingdom ceased to exist. The kingdom of Judah—Oholibah—was killed in 586BC. Upon the death of the kingdoms, God’s marriage with them—the one flesh bond—ended.

          “The evidence all points in one direction ONLY. You shut your eyes to the truth”

          Christ said he was the bridegroom and Scripture says that the church—the new Israel—is his new bride. It never once says he was married to a city.

          “The evidence all points in one direction ONLY. You shut your eyes to the truth”

          Sitting on something in a idiom for the act of ruling, repeated multiple times of the woman in Revelation 17. The whore of Revelation is a ruler, and this is made explicit. The whore of Ezekiel is not.

          “no one has poked a single hole in any singular point I made”

          In fact, it is multiple holes, and not only the ones mentioned in this comment. Of note, none of these holes can be patched by an appeal to the history surrounding Revelation.

          Peace,
          DR

          Reply

          1. DR, having addressed your previous objection I will now refute this one as well:

             “The kingdom of Israel—Oholah—was killed in 720BC. The kingdom ceased to exist. The kingdom of Judah—Oholibah—was killed in 586BC. Upon the death of the kingdoms, God’s marriage with them—the one flesh bond—ended.”

             Here is proof God was married to Israel EVEN after the Babylonian exile when the Temple was rebuilt–refuting your above point. The rebuilt Temple did not have the ark of the Covenant dating this promise to teh time when the Jews returned from exile and built the second Temple (which no longer had the ark in it):

             “14 “Return, faithless people,” declares the Lord, “for I AM YOUR HUSBAND. I will choose you—one from a town and two from a clan—and bring you to Zion. 15 Then I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will lead you with knowledge and understanding. 16 In those days, when your numbers have increased greatly in the land,” declares the Lord, “people will no longer say, ‘The ark of the covenant of the Lord.’ It will never enter their minds or be remembered; it will not be missed, nor will another one be made. 1”

             Of course I am wasting my time, because proof and evidence cannot change the mind of a heart-hearted person who twists everything to please himself, rather than reading honestly to actually understand. You are not interested in truth. You are only interested in your idol of error that you worship above God himself. If God told you what I just said, you would no doubt call him “satan” and cast him out of your presence. You would say to yourself, Satan can appear as an angel of light and since this being is telling me something I do not want to believe, he must be the devil.
             You have no hope, you are lost.

             Reply

             1. Daniel,

                “Here is proof God was married to Israel EVEN after the Babylonian exile”

                The kingdom of Israel died:

                “They uncovered her nakedness; they seized her sons and her daughters, but they killed her with the sword, and she became notorious among women because they executed judgments against her.” — Ezekiel 23:10

                …and…

                “This is what Yahweh says: “Where is the bill of your mother’s divorce with which I have put her away? Or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities were you sold, and for your transgressions your mother was put away.”

                …and…

                “Moreover, Yahweh said to me in the days of Josiah the king, “Have you seen what she did, that unfaithful one, Israel? She has gone up on every high hill and under every green tree, and has prostituted herself there. I said after she had done all these things, ‘She will return to me,’ but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. She saw that for all the adulteries of that unfaithful one, Israel, I had sent her away and given her a bill of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but she also went and prostituted herself.” — Jeremiah 3:6-8

                The marriage of God to the Kingdom of Israel ended in divorce. How could God be the husband of the Kingdom of Israel if he had divorced her and she had died?

                This is also why only the Kingdom of Judah is mentioned after Ezekiel 23:10. But when the Babylonians sacked Jerusalem, the Kingdom of Judah, the wife of God, also died.

                “… reading honestly to actually understand. You are not interested in truth”,

                But scripture says that after the deaths of God’s wives—the two kingdoms, represented by their capital cities—that all that was left were the people of Israel (as a whole, both Judah and the rest of Israel):

                ““Return, faithless people,” declares the Lord, “for I AM YOUR HUSBAND”

                God was married to Israel the people—not the kingdom of Judah nor Israel, but the entire nation or people. When Christ came, he made it clear who—not what—Israel was.

                All I’ve done is demonstrate that Jerusalem was a synecdoche—a metaphor—for the people of Israel. Jesus was not married to Jerusalem, he was married to Israel the people.

                You appeal to events like Berenice as the literal example of adultery, but you discount the literal historical death of the two kingdoms of Israel and Jerusalem, the brides of God. What gives you the right to choose one (found only in extra-biblical sources) and ignore the other (found in biblical sources)?

                Peace,
                DR

             2. Daniel misses the DISCONTINUITY of the New Covenant from the old. Just like Ratzinger. Christ is married to the church in the New Covenant, not literal Israel.

             3. Daniel,

                “You have no hope, you are lost.”

                I just want to point out that all I’ve done is accept your claim that Revelation 17 refers to Ezekiel 23 for sake of argument. I did this in order to show the logical inconsistencies that emerge from that view. I did not accept that view as actually true, and no one should assume that I’ll be able to do so!

                If you can’t even defend your own view from challenges, what chance do you have of proving that the alternative view is wrong? You first have to successfully defend your own view, and then having done that, you can attempt to refute the alternative. But you are nowhere close to ready to do the latter, since you don’t even address the critical points against you.

                You, for example, simply disregarded five of the six holes in your thesis while claiming “having addressed your previous objection [sic].” You are free to make that claim, but there are no comment replies under some of the objections, and most of the rest have comments that do not address the objection (like Tim’s point about prophets being killed outside Jerusalem).

                Anyone can plainly see this by scrolling up. I’m curious why you think this can’t be trivially verified? What are you trying to accomplish by your hit-and-run theology? If you want converts, you can’t just ignore the objections.

                I found a lot interesting in the Revelation 17 / Ezekiel 23 parallel. You may be convincing me that there is something there, such that I may need to do a deeper study into it. But your defense of your own position is deeply lacking and unconvincing. The text itself is not leading me anywhere close to what you think it says, and your lack of a defense isn’t doing your cause any favors.

                Peace,
                DR

             4. Kevin,

                “Christ is married to the church in the New Covenant, not literal Israel.”

                How can Christ be married to Israel if Israel was divorced and then died? It makes no sense at all. You can’t be married to a corpse. You have to ignore the literal words of scripture in order to make that conclusion.

                Peace,
                DR

29. DR “but your statement on the heads being kings is an anachronism. You are not open to learning about history of the Greek term.”

    Look at you squirming. Heads don’t mean kings until after the Bible was written. Even if that is true, don’t you see how IRRELEVANT that is? Heads mean kings or exalted ones in the Bible. That is ALL that matters: Mt 10:25; 13:52; 24:43; Eph 1:22, 1 Co 11:3-10, Eph 4:15; 5:23, Col 1:18, Col 2:10.

    Now look at Revelation’s prequel, Daniel. In Daniel 7 we see the third beast denoting the Greek Empire is a leopard with 4 HEADS. Are these 4 HEADS, 4 hills? Or are they are four KINGS who ruled the four partitions of the Greek Empire after Alexander the Great’s death? WHen Alexander split his empire into 4 parts each ruled by one of his FOUR generals who were now KINGS. Just as stated in Rev 17:9. And Rev 17:9 is the exception even though it clearly says And “THEY”ARE ALSO KINGS. “They” is the better translation than “there” as it is the prefered translation in nearly ALL translations. Just look at the greek word here and how often it is translated “they” when referring to people vs. “there”. This is not an error. THAT IS WHAT THE GREEK CLEARLY INTENDS regardless of your wishful desires. Inconsistency is the hallmark of erroneous exegesis. If we are to believe you heads always symbolize rulers/exalted ones everywhere they have symbolic meaning except for in Rev 17 in spite of the fact that the most natural reading strongly implies this fact too. What more evidence is required here? none. Again, no amount of evidence is enough because your wishful desires overrule any evidence no matter how compelling.

    Jesus said “No prophet can die outside of Jerusalem”, but many prophets have died outside of Jerusalem.

    Look at Matthew 23:
    “31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

    33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.

    37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.”

    Now look at Matthew 27:

    But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”

    24 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”

    25 All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”

    “His blood be on US (Jews of Jerusalem) and OUR CHILDREN (not Romans).” Notice the BLAME for the death of Christ goes SQUARELY ON THE JEWS OF JERUSALEM. Also notice this is EXACTLY what is suggested in Matthew 23. the BLAME for the deaths of all the saints falls on Jerusalem according to the Bible REGARDLESS of where the saints are executed–Jerusalem. Why? because Jerusalem is the one who killed the Prophets and searched out for them throughout her history whereever they were killed as happened in the first century as well.

    After successfully having Jesus killed, the Jewish authorities immediately raised their hand against the Christian church in fulfillment of v 34. This mass persecution recorded in Acts 8:1 and Acts 26:10 is also mentioned by the church historian Eusebius:
    First they [the Jews] stoned Stephen to death; then James the son of Zebedee and the brother of John was beheaded; and finally James, the first after our Saviour’s Ascension to be raised to the bishop’s throne there, lost his life in the way described, while the remaining apostles, in constant danger from murderous plots, were driven out of Judaea.

    In v. 34 Jesus predicts that the Jews would pursue the Christian saints from town to town. The fulfillment of v. 34 is mentioned in Acts 9:1-2 in which Saul is said to have gone to the high priest to ask for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus so that if he found any Christians there he might bring them back as prisoners to Jerusalem. This persecution of the saints by their fellow Jews extended well beyond Damascus and is alluded to often in Acts. It is also confirmed by Suetonius who says that “the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Jesus Christ][.]”3

    If a person orders someone to be killed and that person is murdered, the one who issued the order is guilty of the crime even if he or she was not physically present at the time. The same idea is conveyed in v. 35. Because the persecution of the early church began and was ultimately instigated in Jerusalem, Jesus says that all the blood shed on the earth would be on Jerusalem–“HIS BLOOD BE ON US AND OUR CHILDREN”. In other words, the blame for the unjust deaths of the saints would ultimately fall on Jerusalem.4

    In Revelation 17:4-6 the woman representing Jerusalem presumably shares her cup of blood with the beast representing Rome as is pictured in Jeremiah 51:7: “Babylon was a gold cup in the Lord’s hand; she made the whole earth drunk. The nations drank her wine; therefore they have now gone mad.” The fact that Jerusalem the whore of Babylon seems to share her cup with Gentile Rome, the beast she rides, appears to symbolize the historical fact that the persecution of the saints started in Jerusalem before it spread throughout the Roman Empire in the first century. Because Jerusalem shares her cup filled with the blood of the martyrs with all the nations it is upon Jerusalem that the brunt of the blame is placed. And it is for this reason that Jesus says, “And so upon you [Jerusalem] will come all the blood that has been shed on the earth[.]”

    In Matthew 23:32 Jesus says to the people of Jerusalem, “Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers.” The guilt of their fathers is the guilt of having killed the prophets (Matthew 23:35-37). The blood of these martyred saints is depicted in the cup full of the blood of the saints held in the hand of the whore of Babylon in Revelation 17:4-6:

    The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a gold cup full of abominations and of the unclean things of her immorality, and on her forehead a name was written, a mystery, “BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus.

    The fact that Jesus tells Jerusalem to “[f]ill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers” is thus a reference to Jerusalem filling her cup with the blood of the saints depicted in Revelation 17

    “The whore of Revelation is a ruler, and this is made explicit. The whore of Ezekiel is not.

    In your mind, but there is no evidence of this idea. Here is the evidence of the identity of the whore of Babylon.

    In Ezekiel 23 Jerusalem is the whore of Babylon just like Rev 17
    In Ezekiel 23 Jerusalem drinks a cup that brings her ruin just like Rev 17
    In Ezekiel 23 Jerusalem is burned by Babylon, just like the whore in Rev 17
    In Ezekiel 23 Jerusalem is left naked by Babylon, just like the whore in Rev 17.

    How much more evidence do you need? None apparently, because no amount can convince you of your error.

    Reply

    1. Sorry, this was in the spam folder. I didn’t notice until today.

       Reply

       1. Derek, Your argument that post-exilic Jerusalem could not be the wife of God because there was no ark in the Temple makes no sense. Clearly post-exilic Jerusalem was STILL the wife of God per Jeremiah 3. If the Jews were not in a marriage covenant with God, why did they rebuilt a Temple? How could they still be God’s people, the only people God “knows” (a euphemism for sexual relations)? Are post-exilic Jews no longer God’s people? Are we to ignore as erroneous Jer 3? BTW. there are no Messianic prophecies that refer exclusively to Jesus every one of them as a proximal fulfillment in the present or near future to the author. There are very few predictions in the old testament exclusive to NT realities. Almost every single OT prophecy was fulfilled prior to Jesus’ birth, there are shockingly few exceptions. The prophecies cited by NT authors as referring to Jesus are tyological, they are not the initial meaning or fulfillment of these verses all of which refer to events and people long before Jesus was born.
          So citing a Messianic prophecy does not solve any problem as there still expected to be an immediate fulfillment. Messianic prophecies are just typology–easter-egg references.

          BTW Tim approved by previous comment where I address the other objections that were raised. Please scroll up and read my response.

          Reply

    2. Daniel,

       “Look at you squirming. Heads don’t mean kings until after the Bible was written. Even if that is true, don’t you see how IRRELEVANT that is? Heads mean kings or exalted ones in the Bible. That is ALL that matters: Mt 10:25; 13:52; 24:43; Eph 1:22, 1 Co 11:3-10, Eph 4:15; 5:23, Col 1:18, Col 2:10.”

       I’m not squirming at all, because I am well-versed in this area, having spent countless hours of research and publishing multiple articles on the topic.

       The Greek oikodespotés (“master of the house”; “landowner”; “owner”) used in Matthew and Luke is a completely different word from kephale (“head”). It only means “head of the house” in English, where ‘head’ in English means “one in authority”. I discuss every use of the word here, including the case where wives are told by Paul to be the master of the house. Are you suggesting that wives are the head (that is, leader, one in utmost authority) of the house?

       In Ephesians 4:15, Ephesians 5:23, 1 Corinthians 11:3-10, Colossians 1:18, ‘head’ is the standard meaning of preeminence, exaltedness, elevation, or firstness. It does not mean leadership or rule.

       In Ephesians 1:22, ‘head’ is used in a head-feet metaphor. It is the metaphor, not the word ‘head,’ that indicates authority and leadership. In any case, it doesn’t mean leader, ruler, or ‘king.’ Moreover, the head-feet metaphor is not used in Revelation.

       In Colossians 2:10, the standard meaning of ‘head’ applies, but the association with authority and rule are explicitly added: a ‘head’ of rule and has authority (as opposed to a not first ruler or authority). ‘Head’ does not mean leader, ruler, or king, although Christ is called the head of rule and authority.

       In Revelation 17, ‘head’ means ‘head’. It doesn’t mean ‘king’ at all. The heads, that is the heads of the beast, are called hills. But the word ‘head’ does not mean ‘king’, just as it does not mean ‘hill’. John is speaking in a figure-of-speech and explaining what the figure is. The point is, there is absolutely no sense in which ‘kephale’ means ‘king’ in this passage. It doesn’t even mean ‘exalted one’, it just means ‘head’, the thing on the top of the neck. The beast and heads are used as figures-of-speech that have nothing to do with the semantics of ‘kephale’. For example, if I called you a potato/wrench/cloud, the lexical meaning of potato/wrench/cloud is not in any way affected by the figure-of-speech.

       By far the most common meaning of ‘head’ is the thing on the neck. Sometimes it also refers to preeminence, firstness, etc. In Revelation 17, it is only the former, and in the rest of the NT, it can in fact mean exaltedness.

       None of this changes the fact that kephale did even begin to mean leader or ruler until the late 4th century (likely as a result of Greek-speaking Christians using Paul’s head-foot metaphor), and did not establish itself in the common language until the medieval era. This development happened long after the book of Revelation was written, after Paul’s letters had had centuries to subtly alter the Greek language of Greek-speaking Christians.

       The point is, your argument relies on head meaning king. Without that assumption, the foundation of your argument is based on pure speculation.

       ““They” is the better translation than “there” as it is the prefered translation in nearly ALL translations. Just look at the greek word here and how often it is translated “they” when referring to people vs. “there”. This is not an error. THAT IS WHAT THE GREEK CLEARLY INTENDS”

       The word is the copula. The Greek cannot possibly intend “they” or “there”. It is literally “And kings seven are”. In English we use “there” to indicate existence because that is what the verb “be” implies: it is.

       Mystifying and spiritualizing the copula is one of the weirdest examples of eisegesis there is. See how I used “there” in that sentence? That is how it is used in v10.

       Translating it as “they”—a pronoun—is massively unjustified. There is no pronoun in the text, it is added by translators. And let’s not forget that v10 starts with “And”, just as in verses 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 18 to indicate a sentence break in each case. “They” is completely unjustified by the grammar in the Greek.

       “Inconsistency is the hallmark of erroneous exegesis. [..] Again, no amount of evidence is enough because your wishful desires overrule any evidence no matter how compelling.”

       That’s the point I’ve been trying to show. I’ve pointed out a half-dozen to a dozen errors in your reasoning. It’s not a matter of wishful thinking: i’m not going to change my view for one that is inherently flawed. You want me to set aside my own reason and embrace your view without an rational justification. I’m not going to do that. The most you can expect is that I withhold judgment.

       ““The whore of Revelation is a ruler, and this is made explicit. The whore of Ezekiel is not. In your mind, but there is no evidence of this idea. “

       This is a bizarre claim. There are hills of evidence. Revelation 17 describes the whore as ruling over her partner in seven verses: v1, v3, v5, v9, v15, v17, and v18. Ezekiel does not describe Jerusalem ruling at all, but being dominated and destroyed by her partner.

       “In Ezekiel 23 Jerusalem is…”

       I’ve already shown that the signifier of the metaphor is different between Ezekiel 23 and Revelation 17, while the signified is the same. When I said…

       So, in Revelation, Jerusalem (=Babylon) by adulterous marriage to Babylon (=Rome). But in Ezekiel, Jerusalem (≠Babylon) is in adultery with Babylon (≠Rome), but Jerusalem is nowhere called Babylon even though they must have become one flesh.”

       …I showed that your statements are logically inconsistent. The word we both used was disjointed. Repeating your disjointed statement is still unconvincing, since you have not fixed the disjointedness since that previous comment.

       “Jesus said “No prophet can die outside of Jerusalem”, but many prophets have died outside of Jerusalem.”

       I’m going to let Tim handle this line of discussion, if he so chooses. You and I have enough lines of inquiry open that it is simply unnecessary for us to pursue this one at this time.

       Peace,
       DR

       Reply

30. Derek and Kevin, I already addressed your previous remarks that is why I posted again to address the death of the bride of God. Tim did not approve the comment yet. Please have him approve this comment so we can mose forward. Obviously there is a comment missing.

    Now back to the divorce of Israel. BTW it was the divorce of Samaria who was exiled throughout the nations, NOT the divorce of Jerusalem. Please go through and reread Ezekiel 23, you have misrepresented the text, God NEVER divorced Jerusalem. You can see it in the verse I cited above where God is STILL HUSBAND to Jerusalem and how could he not be if the Temple was in the city??? Even if war does not result in the death of Jerusalem which is never mentioned in Ezekiel 23 as it is in the case of Samaria. The fact remains God WAS STILL MARRIED TO JERUSALEM. Your whole idea of God divorcing Samaria and killing Jerusalem (which is never mentioned, nor is the divorce of Jerusalem mentioned) to marry Israel as a whole makes no sense. God DIVORCED THE NORTHERN KINGDOM, HE NEVER DIVORCED JUDAH / JERUSALEM.

    Regarding my ignoring 5 or the 6 objections, Tim, please approve my response to those objections, they will shut the mouths of these people. Just kidding. Proof and evidence just flies over their heads, because nothing about what Kevin or DR believe is rooted in evidence at all.

    Reply

    1. Daniel,

       Try making your argument concisely without relying on external links. Too many links cause it to go to moderation.

       Ezekiel 23 opens with God having two wives of one mother: (1) Oholah the older was the Kingdom of Israel to the North and her name was Samaria, the capital city of Israel; (2) Oholibah the younger was the Kingdom of Judah to the South and her name was Jerusalem, the capital city of Judah. Both were unfaithful in Egypt.

       Oholah’s fate was thus: she aligned herself with Assyria, whom she lusted after. She was given up to the hands of her lovers—the Assyrians—who stripped her naked, took her children, and killed her by the sword when Israel was conquered in 720BC.

       Oholibah’s fate was similar. She aligned herself with Babylon, whom she lusted after. She was given up to the hands of her lovers—the Babylonians—who stripped her naked, took her children, and killed her by the sword when Judah was conquered in 586BC.

       Both of God’s wives were killed, thus their one-flesh bond was severed. But both of God’s wives had children: sons and daughters. It is to the children of Oholah that Jeremiah refers.

       Only Oholah—the Kingdom of Israel—had been divorced (Jeremiah 3:8). But as Isaiah 50:1 tells us, it was her children that were sold into a limited period of slavery. It is these who eventually became God’s husband, not Oholah or Oholibah.

       “Your whole idea of God divorcing Samaria and killing Jerusalem (which is never mentioned, nor is the divorce of Jerusalem mentioned)”

       Their mother Oholah was dead, because she had been conquered by the Assyrians. Then Oholibah was killed because she had been conquered by the Babylonians. As you have noted, the text explicitly states that she was stripped naked and burned.

       You say that the Bible never mentions Jerusalem being killed, but it absolutely does. The means by which Oholah was killed is precisely the same as the means by which Oholibah was killed. Is your problem that the Bible never uses the word “kill” and merely demonstrates unambiguously that she died? In what part of the Bible or of history is it unclear that the Kingdom of Judah ceased to be after the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and captured her children?

       You are correct that there no divorce of Jerusalem, nor did there need to be. A certificate of divorce is only possible if the wife is still alive. The marital one-flesh bond ended with her death. You are careful to cite 1 Corinthians 6:16 (re: Genesis 2:24) to say that Israel and Rome were joined, but you fail to note that when Samaria and Jerusalem were killed, their married with God ended.

       In Jeremiah 3:14, God appeals to the children of Oholah, not Oholah herself, who had died. In Jeremiah 3:18, God merged the House of Israel—the children of Oholah—with the House of Judah—the children of Oholibah—from out of the north. So when God speaks of the being the husband of Israel, he is not speaking of the city of Samaria or the Kingdom of Israel, for both were dead, but of the children of that kingdom: the people itself. God was not married to the city.

       Jeremiah 3 was written in 627BC before the death of the Kingdom of Judah in 587BC. God’s marriage to Judah had not yet ended. But in Jeremiah 31:21, written after the fall of the Kingdom of Judah, God calls Israel a virgin. In Jeremiah 31:4, God promises to rebuild Israel. He then promised in Jeremiah 31:31 to form a New Covenant (from whence comes the New Jerusalem). He was proposing marriage to Jerusalem, which he could not have done if Israel was not a virgin and God was already married to Jerusalem. He says in Jeremiah 31:33 that they will be his people.

       This is unambiguous.

       In summary, the Kingdom of Israel died. Next, the children of Israel were joined in marriage to the Kingdom of Judah: Israel—Oholah—was no more. Then, the Kingdom of Judah died and her children were scattered. The marriage ended. Lastly, God promised a future marriage to the virgin Israel, which took place with Christ (as further described in the book of Hebrews).

       While Revelation 17 is an allusion to Ezekiel 23, it is not exactly the same as I’ve noted above many times. The two share a metaphor, meaning the signified of the metaphor’s signifier is the same: the people of Israel. The signifier—the cities—are not and cannot be the same, because the signifiers in Ezekiel 23 died and Revelation 17 specifies a different signifier. God is no longer married to either Samaria or Jerusalem.

       Moreover, and this is the point you seem to be missing, is that in Ezekiel 23, Israel is separate from Jerusalem. Revelation 17 cannot be referring to both Jerusalem and Israel. Your interpreation of Revlation 17 assumes that the whore of Babylon is both Jerusalem and Israel, but the whore in Ezekiel 23 was explicitly not Israel, only Judah.

       Peace,
       DR

       Reply

    2. Daniel,

       I failed to make one important point.

       “Here is proof God was married to Israel EVEN after the Babylonian exile when the Temple was rebuilt–refuting your above point. The rebuilt Temple did not have the ark of the Covenant dating this promise to teh time when the Jews returned from exile and built the second Temple (which no longer had the ark in it):”

       You say that Jeremiah 3 is proof that God was married after the exile, but this was written during the reign of Josiah the King (Jeremiah 3:6) and Yahweh refers to Israel as her current husband being returned to Jerusalem (Jeremiah 3:14). But Jeremiah 3:16-18 is a Messianic prophecy and must be interpreted in light of Jeremiah 31-33.

       You have completely mistaken the significance of the Ark of the Covenant being missing. The rebuilding of the second Temple did not have the ark in it and so that Jerusalem could not have been the bride of God, nor the Temple the symbol of the new marriage covenant for their was no ark to commemorate it.

       After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, no city was God’s bride until the Ark of the Covenant was replaced by the body of Christ and the establishment in Christ of the New Covenant.

       The second temple period was not the new covenant, nor was it the marriage of God to Israel.

       Peace,
       DR

       Reply

31. Daniel” they will shut the mouths of these people” consider me out of this discussion. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. If your goal is to shut someone up then in all likelihood your position is flawed. The person who owns this site has been completely open to everyone’s input on his position. You’re a guy with an eschatological position, not a prophet. Pride commeth before the fall. Kevin

    Reply

32. Derek, Your argument that post-exilic Jerusalem could not be the wife of God because there was no ark in the Temple makes no sense. Clearly post-exilic Jerusalem was STILL the wife of God per Jeremiah 3. If the Jews were not in a marriage covenant with God, why did they rebuilt a Temple? How could they still be God’s people, the only people God “knows” (a euphemism for sexual relations)? Are post-exilic Jews no longer God’s people? Are we to ignore as erroneous Jer 3? BTW. there are no Messianic prophecies that refer exclusively to Jesus every one of them as a proximal fulfillment in the present or near future to the author. There are very few predictions in the old testament exclusive to NT realities. Almost every single OT prophecy was fulfilled prior to Jesus’ birth, there are shockingly few exceptions. The prophecies cited by NT authors as referring to Jesus are tyological, they are not the initial meaning or fulfillment of these verses all of which refer to events and people long before Jesus was born.
    So citing a Messianic prophecy does not solve any problem as there still expected to be an immediate fulfillment. Messianic prophecies are just typology–easter-egg references.

    BTW Tim approved by previous comment where I address the other objections that were raised. Please scroll up and read my response.

    Reply

    1. Daniel,

       “Your argument that post-exilic Jerusalem could not be the wife of God because there was no ark in the Temple makes no sense.”

       That isn’t precisely what I said. The status of the Ark is not why Jerusalem is not the wife of God, it is merely an indication of the fact, a logical consequence if you will. The reason Jerusalem is not the wife of God is because she died. Specifically, God is only mentioned as the husband of both the children of Oholah/Israel and Oholibah/Judah before the exile.

       I’ve confirmed this by checking each instance of the Hebrew word baal regarding Israel and Judah’s husband. In Isaiah, written before the exile, God is described as the husband. In Jeremiah 3:14 during the reign of Josiah before the exile, God says “I am your husband” (present tense), but during the exile in Jeremiah 31:32 he says “I was a husband to them” (past tense) for he was no longer married. In Malachi 2:11, written after the exile had ended and Jerusalem restored, we find that Judah—within Israel and Jerusalem—is married, not to God, but to the daughter of a foreign god.

       But what about the Ark? The Ark of the Covenant was made at the foot of Mt. Sinai and signified the (old) marriage covenant made at that time. At Mt. Sinai, God proposed marriage and Israel accepted the proposal. And so the Tabernacle (and later the Temple) was made to house the Ark of the Covenant, which signified the marriage.

       But the second temple had no ark. It had no symbol of marriage. It was a temple without an Ark, a temple that didn’t represent the marriage covenant between God and his people, because both Oholah and Oholibah had died and the marriage had ended. An Ark in the second temple was impossible.

       Jeremiah 3 is not erroneous. Before the exile, God brings Israel to Zion, to join with Judah as God’s wife. And then Jerusalem is destroyed. Can you show where in Jeremiah 3 Jerusalem is married post-exile? I cannot.

       As you say, Messianic prophecies have dual fulfillment, and Jeremiah 3:16-17 is no exception. Time passes and Israel no longer remembers the ark of the covenant, the symbol of marriage to God. They do not miss being married to God. That symbol of marriage—indeed the marriage itself—would never be made again. Instead, we find the answer to your question….

       “why did they rebuilt a Temple?”

       …in v17: they wanted to build the Throne of Yahweh. The reason was explicitly not the Ark, but rather the Throne: not marriage, but rule.

       This is unambiguous in Jeremiah 31 where Israel is called a virgin (unmarried) post-exile. God proposes marriage—a second or new covenant—at that time, but it is not yet accepted. It is not accepted until Christ. This is made plain in the book of Hebrews.

       Peace,
       DR

       Reply

33. Derek, Samaria is divorced. Jerusalem is never divorced. Regarding whether any of these women died, we don’t know. The evidence suggests that none of God’s wifes died. He divorced Samaria, but never divorces Jerusalem although he rejects her in his anger (but does not divorce her):

    “Do not be afraid; you will not be put to shame.
    Do not fear disgrace; you will not be humiliated.
    You [Jerusalem] will forget the shame of your youth
    and remember no more the reproach of your widowhood.
    5 For your Maker is your husband—
    the Lord Almighty is his name—
    the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer;
    he is called the God of all the earth.
    6 The Lord will call you back
    as if you were a wife deserted and distressed in spirit—
    a wife who married young,
    only to be rejected,” says your God.
    7 “For a brief moment I abandoned you,
    but with deep compassion I will bring you back.” (Isaiah 54:4-7.)

    The fact that God rejects Jerusalem (but doesn’t divorce her just turns away in anger) shows us compelling evidence that Jerusalem DID NOT DIE when besieged by the Babylonian army in the sixth century B.C.

    Here we see God’s wife (Jerusalem) doesn’t die. But was she divorced? No. How do we know? Because it is unlawful to remarry a wife you previously divorced:

    “If a man divorces his wife
    and she leaves him and marries another man,
    should he return to her again?
    Would not the land be completely defiled?
    But you have lived as a prostitute with many lovers—
    would you now return to me?”
    declares the Lord. (Jer 3:1)

    Reply

34. I need to edit myself: Jeremiah 31:32’s reference is to God being the husband of Israel after he brought Israel out of Egypt. ” It will not be like the covenant
    I made with their ancestors
    when I took them by the hand
    to lead them out of Egypt,
    because they broke my covenant,
    though I was a husband to[d] them,[e]”
    declares the Lord.

    He divorces Israel during the Assyrian invasion per Jer 3. This correlates with the exile of the northern kingdom. And yet interestingly god violates the law of remarriage after divorce by apparently saying he was married to the northern kingdom in Jeremiah 3:14 during the reign of Josiah: 14 “Return, faithless people,” declares the Lord, “for I am your husband.” It would seem the idea of being married to god applied to one’s presence in the holy land and divorce was exile. Here we see god divorcing the northern kingdom in the seventh century bc and still in marriage covenant with those remaining still in the land.

    Reply

    1. Daniel,

       “The evidence suggests that none of God’s wifes died.”

       Ezekiel 23:10, speaking of Oholah/Samaria/The Kingdom of Israel, says “They stripped her naked, took away her sons and daughters and killed her with the sword. ”

       God’s wife was killed and her children were sent into captivity. It is to these virgin children that God speaks of in Jeremiahs 31:32:

       “Jeremiah 31:32’s reference is to God being the husband of Israel after he brought Israel out of Egypt.”

       In Jeremiah 31:31, God says he was a husband after saying Israel is [now] a virgin in Jeremiah 31:4.

       “god violates the law of remarriage after divorce by apparently saying he was married to the northern kingdom in Jeremiah 3:14 during the reign of Josiah”

       God said he was husband to the children—the offspring—of Israel/Oholah before they were exiled, not to Israel/Oholah herself. God was not married to the northern kingdom, because the northern kingdom had died. God was absorbing the people of the northern kingdom (Israel) into Judah, which he was currently married to.

       After this point in history, Judah and Israel are one nation.

       “Jerusalem DID NOT DIE when besieged by the Babylonian army in the sixth century B.C.”

       Samaria died when she was put to the sword. Was Jerusalem not also put to the sword?

       “It would seem the idea of being married to god applied to one’s presence in the holy land and divorce was exile.”

       You realize that if that were the case, then Jerusalem/Israel could not been married to God in Rome? That would have been, by definition, exile.

       Peace,
       DR

       Reply

35. Daniel,

    I want to continue where I left off in
    my previous comment in response to your query:

    If the Jews were not in a marriage covenant with God, why did they rebuilt a Temple? How could they still be God’s people, the only people God “knows” (a euphemism for sexual relations)? Are post-exilic Jews no longer God’s people?”

    This question is answered in the prophecy of Jeremiah 3:16-17. God contrasts the Ark of the Covenant (more-or-less the equivalent of our “wedding ring”) with the Throne of God. Of the former, he says that Israel will not think of it, not remember it, and will not miss it. Of the latter he says that Jerusalem will represent the ruling authority of the Lord over the nation of Israel.

    Now we are going to look at three passages that highlight thos same concept of rule over the children of Israel, not God’s bride.

    First is Jeremiah 31:36:

    “This is what Yahweh says: who gives the sun for a light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea, so that its waves roar— Yahweh of Armies is his name: “Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,” declares the Lord, “will Israel ever cease being a nation before me.”

    Second is Jeremiah 33:25-26:

    ““Thus says the LORD, ‘If My covenant for day and night stand not, and the fixed patterns of heaven and earth I have not established, then I would reject the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, not taking from his descendants rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”

    Third is Isaiah 13:10, which Jesus quoted in the Olivet Discourse:

    “For the stars of heaven and its constellations will not give their light. The sun will be dark when it rises, and the moon will not shine forth its light.”

    When Jesus quoted this, it was in the context of his prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. Hebrews 8—written just prior to the destruction of Jerusalem—quotes the same passage in Jeremiah 31 in its discussion of the New Covenant replacing the old, indicating that these passages are all talking about the same thing.

    And so Jesus made clear that the nation of Israel ceased to be in 70AD. It was on that date, with the destruction of the Temple, that the throne of God ceased to be associated with the nation of Israel, thus ending both the Old Covenant and Israel as a nation.

    After Israel was exiled, God was no longer married, but he was nonetheless still the ruler of Israel and Israel was still God’s nation. Israel—though God’s people—was a virgin: unmarried. There had been no wedding.

    Now we jump ahead to Jesus. Jesus was the bridegroom of the church and the church was his bride prior to 70AD. Thus the church was Christ’s bride independent of Israel being God’s people. The marriage of Christ to the church did not coincide with the end of the nation of Israel in 70AD. These were separate events.

    Peace,
    DR

    Reply

36. Daniel,

    You cited Isaiah 54:4-7, which says that Jerusalem was divorced:

    “You [Jerusalem] will forget the shame of your youth and remember no more the reproach of your widowhood. [..] The Lord will call you back as if you were a wife deserted and distressed in spirit—a wife who married young, only to be rejected,” says your God. “For a brief moment I abandoned you,
    but with deep compassion I will bring you back.” “

    Do you care to comment on that?

    Peace,
    DR

    Reply

37. Daniel,

    Now I will continue from this comment and conclude my points. With this final comment, the timeline of God’s marriage to Israel will be complete.

    God’s betrothal—first marriage covenant—was proposed by God to Abram in Genesis 12 and signed/formalized Genesis 17 by circumcision.

    Time passes and Israel became a people in Egypt. We read about God’s desire for his betrothed in Ezekiel 16, but also how God’s betrothed was unfaithful in Egypt (also in Ezekiel 23).

    Yet God redeemed them and at the foot of Mt. Sinai the marriage ceremony took place. The people received the Law and the Ark of the Covenant was made.

    God led his brides to the promised land, but then they rejected God. They were forced to wander for 40 years and at the end of the 40 years the new generation (see Numbers 32:13) of now virgin Israelites had to renew the circumcision (Joshua 5:2).

    With the fall of Samaria, God’s first bride was killed. Her children were absorbed by Judah. With the subsequent fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple and the Ark, God’s second bride was killed. Thus death ended the marriage to Jerusalem.

    From this point forth, God calls Israel a virgin. As with Abram, he proposes marriage to the virgin Israel. Israel rebuilds the temple—and later rededicates it—but it does not contain the tablets of the law or the Ark of the Covenant. No marriage ceremony takes place.

    Then Christ comes and through the circumcision of the heart (Romans 2:29) and the law written, not on tablets, but on our hearts (2 Corinthians 3:1-6), the marriage with Christ takes place through a marital joining to Christ’s body by faith in the Word (Ephesians 5). In doing so he fulfills his marriage contract established during the exile:

    “Behold, the days are coming, declares Yahweh, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; my covenant that they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares Yahweh. But this is the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel after those days,” declares Yahweh. “I will put my law within them, yes, I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they will be my people,”

    Hebrews 8 confirms that this was a prophecy about Christ. From the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, the only way anyone could have been married—united—to God was through the circumcision of the heart and by the law written on the hearts.

    From this point in history, physical circumcision was meaningless and obsolete. Although its practice continued, it had no marital purpose, except to show that the nation of Israel still existed and was separate. The Ark of the Covenant was destroyed, and the tablets of the law did not exist: the law of the New Covenant would one day be written on the heart. It also confirms who God’s people—God’s Israel—would be.

    The building of the temple could not have fulfilled the requirements for marriage. Israel was indeed betrothed and thus “married” in the same sense that Mary had been married to Joseph, but no ceremony—no marital cleaving or one-flesh bond—had taken place. The marriage remained a promise for the future.

    History does not record any moment between the exile and Christ in which a marriage between God and Israel takes place. It confirms that God’s betrothed—as in Egypt—married the child of another god (Malachi 2:11), but no marriage ceremony with God took place. As Jeremiah 31:35 notes, Israel as a nation had the opportunity from the point of their exile to await the Messiah and to embrace their betrothed when he came, or else their nation would be ended forever. This is confirmed in Jesus’ parable of the ten virgins.

    In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus noted that the people had been given one generation, 40 years, to accept the marriage: from the time of Christ’s ministry in 30AD to the destruction of the temple in 70AD. But unlike how the 40 year wandering in the wilderness led to a second circumcision, this time Israel rejected the proposal of marriage. Thus ended their nation and the old covenant. Just as Joshua and his family had served the Lord for 40 years, so too had Christians—disciples—been married to Christ from the start of Christ’s ministry.

    And so we find in Revelation 17, that the unfaithful bride of God could not have been Jerusalem, because Jerusalem was not married to God. From 30AD, the Israel that had chosen Christ-the church—was circumcised in their hearts was married to God through Christ through his death and resurrection.

    Peace,
    DR

    Reply

    1. Excellent presentation Derek.

       Reply

       1. Kevin,

          Thank you.

          As an aside, the New Testament found it very important to note that the church had a circumcision of the heart, that the law was written on our hearts and no longer on stone. Christ’s body is the Ark of the Covenant (Luke 22:19) in which we—with the law on our hearts—are stored.

          This makes the blasphemy of Mary as the Ark so much more obvious and horrendous.

          The next time we will see the Ark of the Covenant—described in Revelation 11:19—is after the seventh trumpet is blown and Christ himself is revealed as the Ark of the Covenant in the sanctuary of God.

          Peace,
          DR

          Reply

38. Kevin, Derek, Let’s assume it were possible to show Jerusalem is not married to God post-exile, this still does not affect the idea that Jerusalem is the whore of Babylon. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that she was betrothed to God at that time as you have said–but NOT married. The Greek never says that the whore of Babylon commits “adultery” this is just the translation in the NIV and maybe a few others (but not all i.e. the NASB). The Greek word used in all these instances is ἐπόρνευσαν and πορνείας as Tim pointed out above which just means sexual immorality. Let’s assume she was betrothed to be married to God but was a “prostitute” as she is said to be. All the same symbolism applied unaffected. The idea remains Jerusalem becomes one flesh with the beast through fornication/adultery (either way nothing changes): “he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” 1 Cor 6:16).

    Reply

    1. Daniel,

       “Let’s assume [Jerusalem] was betrothed to be married to God but was a “prostitute” as she is said to be. All the same symbolism applied unaffected. The idea remains Jerusalem becomes one flesh with the beast through fornication/adultery (either way nothing changes)”

       I agree that this is worth exploring further.

       Before I answer you, I’ll note that you’ve mentioned adultery ~50 times in the comments above. Given the significant emphasis you’ve placed upon it and the insistence with which you’ve pressed your point, I’m not convinced that it is suddenly irrelevant to your position. Such a switch is unusually convenient. I’m going to reread your comments before give you a full response.

       Peace,
       DR

       Reply

39. Derek, only a Roman Catholic would go to this extent to want to convince reformed Christians and other Protestants that Jerusalem and not ROME is the whore of Babylon! You can here the echo of JC Ryle when he says keep listening when you here let us reason. If you listen long enough theyll tell you who they are.

    Reply

40. Not Catholic. Evidence is evidence.

    “no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!” (Luke 13:33)

    “All the people answered, “His (Jesus) blood is on US and on our children!” (Matthew 27:25)

    34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues AND PURSUE FROM TOWN TO TOWN (these saints could have been killed outside Jerusalem notice). 35 AND SO UPON YOU [Jerusalem] WILL COME ALL THE REIGHTEOUS BLOOD SHED ON THE EARTH from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on THIS GENERATION.

    37 “JERUSALEM, JERUSALEM, YOU who KILL THE PROPHETS and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. ”

    “In her [whore of Babylon] was found the blood of prophets and of God’s holy people,
    of all who have been slaughtered on the earth.” (Rev 18:24)

    Jesus puts the BLAME for the deaths of all the prophets killed in the earth on Jerusalem since she pursued these people from town to town.

    Reply

41. Hi Tim,

    Wow! There’s a lot of discussion on this one. I want to raise an objection: how can the Roman Empire be one of the seven heads of the beast, when the beast is composed of Assyria, Medo-Persia, and Greece? It is those three beasts whose lives are prolonged, and who later rise together in the form of Antichrist, contemporaneously with Rome, not with Rome as a part of itself.

    Reply

    1. Tim, The Roman Empire conquered much of the territory of those previous empires and adopted much of their religion and cultures which is relevant to and explains much of the symbolism in revelation which alludes to this. But Rome is not one of the heads of the beast. Heads denote kings/exalted ones Biblically. The beast is the Roman Empire under the Caesar and Flavian Dynasties:

       “The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings.” (Rev 17:9-10) Rome was founded on EXACTLY seven hills by EXACTLY seven kings. Aune writes, “[A]ccording to tradition, Rome did have seven kings, no more and no less. These belonged to the Roman monarchy beginning with Romulus (traditionally 753 B.C.) and ending with the expulsion of the seventh king, Tarquinius Superbus, in 508 B.C.”2 Romans suffered greatly during the the reign of these seven kings causing Rome to become a republic in 509 B.C. ruled by two consuls and a senate. After these seven founding kings, Rome did not have a king for 500 years. This did not change until the rise of the Caesar Dynasty when Julius Caesar declared himself emperor for life and was assassinated soon thereafter and his successor, Augustus, firmly established the autocracy.3

       It must be emphasized, however, that the seven heads/kings of Revelation are NOT Rome’s seven founding kings, after all Revelation mentions at least eight kings (Revelation 17:11). Rather, the fact that the beast of Revelation 13 is said to have seven heads/kings implies a kind of spiritual or symbolic return of the seven founding kings of Rome or more precisely a return to the autocracy and tyranny of these kings. The seven-headed beast in Revelation symbolizes Rome, the city of seven hills, and its return to autocracy and the evil that seemed destined to follow when history repeated itself as Rome regressed back to its tyrannical roots with the rise of the Caesar Dynasty—the sea beast of Revelation.

       Reply

    2. Josh,

       “how can the Roman Empire be one of the seven heads of the beast, when the beast is composed of Assyria, Medo-Persia, and Greece? “

       Let’s refer to Daniel 7:11:

       “I beheld even till the [fourth] beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. As concerning the rest of the [first three of the four] beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.”

       Daniel has all the beasts coexisting even after they had their dominion taken place. The beasts are more than merely dominions/kings. John makes this language equally clear:

       “And the [fifth] beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.” — Revelation 13:2

       It is a matter of composition, succession, and overlap: each dominion (gold, silver, bronze, iron, iron/clay, and then the fifth kingdom) is composed of itself plus all the kingdoms, lands, and peoples that came before it.

       The second takes over from the first. The third from the second. The fourth takes over from the third, and when its dominion is taken away, the first three still exist for a season and a time. When the fifth arises, it is composed of the three that came before it plus the transference of the dominion of the fourth.

       Not that the transition from the fourth to the fifth is not like the others. The first three transitions are from one dominion to another separate, but the fourth is more of a hand-off, not a replacement: it is distinctly Roman-to-Roman.

       Peace,
       DR

       Reply

       1. I Agree with everything you said above. The statue from Babylon to Rome represents the authority of Satan. Recall the dragon gives the beast his power and dominion in Rev 12-13 and the beast takes on the form of the dragon (Satan). The transition from the fourth to the fifth is the transition from Roman to Roman Catholic–i.e. the Kingdom of God/Messianic Kingdom/Rule of Christ. But on a more serious not as I know that statement will get a rise out of Protestants that are so vociferously against Catholics like Red Sox fans hate the Yankees and Yankee fans with such a passion in spite of how similar both teams are. No to be frank, the kingdom of God/Messianic kingdom was much more than just Roman Catholic, it also included Coptic believers, Christians in Mesopotamia etc etc and would you know it maybe even Protestants. The Chruch is the mountain that grew and spread across the earth, it is the New Jerusalem, the Kingdom of Heaven, the Messianic Kingdom, the fulfillment of the OT promises etc.

          Reply

    3. A very reasonable question, Josh. I believe Derek already answered it. The beast is certainly composed of Babylon (Lion Head), Medo-Persia (Bear Head) and Greece (four Leopard Heads), accounting for six of the seven heads. But it is important to understand as well that the Beast itself is essentially Roman. As a Horn among Horns (Daniel 7:9) the Little Horn is part of the Iron/Clay period of the Toes (Daniel 2:42). The Little Horn came up while the Roman Head was still alive, and according to Revelation 17, he ended up taking over that empire. If we consider the Roman Empire fragmented into 13 Dioceses, the Little Horn aggregating to himself 3 of the 13, coming up among the remaining 10, we have an empire that at its core — fragmented though it may be — substantially represents the full Roman Empire. And it was God’s will that he aggregate to himself the remnants of the Roman Empire and rule over it: “For God hath put in their hearts [the hearts of the Ten Horns] to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast” (Revelation 17:17).

       It is noteworthy, I think, that the first strike of the Stone of Daniel 2:34 strikes only the feet (Iron and Clay), but the Second Strike impacts all the empires at once: “Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together…” (Daniel 2:35).

       Had the Iron and Clay itself not survived and endured along with the Gold, Silver and Brass, there would have been no cause for the iron and clay to be broken to pieces together with the rest by the second strike of the Stone. Thus, the Iron and Clay period (Rome) must have somehow been prolonged along with the other empires.

       We see this also in Daniel 12 (after the last gasp of the Greek period at the end of Daniel 11), as the angelic narrator describes in continuous fashion a post-hellenic period that lasts until the very very end:

       “And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” (Daniel 12:1-2)

       After the Greek Period, the Roman Period begins, and because of the identity of the Little Horn being Roman, and the vast spread of time between the Resurrection of the Elect and the Resurrection of the Damned it is fair to say that God’s people have been living in the Roman Era since Julius Cæasar, for the Little Horn who took over the Roman Empire is “of the Seven” (Revelation 17:11), and will continue living in the Roman Era until Christ’s return.

       As Derek pointed out the transition from Lion to Bear and Bear to Leopard is one of conquest and the transition from the terrifying Roman Head to the Little Horn is one of succession as the Beast of Revelation 13 (the 5th Beast) takes over the empire previously administered by the 4th beast of Daniel 7.

       It is a fascinating aspect of the Danielic Chronology first that Daniel should depict 2 strikes of the Stone in Daniel 2, and second that the first strike should simply prepare the way for the Little Horn to rise up from among the fragments and take over.

       Reply

42. Daniel ” that the seven heads/ kings implies a kind of …….” Scripture ” the seven heads are 7 HILLS” springboard theology at its finest.

    Reply

43. Daniel ” how similar they are” Red Sox Yankees. Tim has an article called The rise of Roman Catholicism, do yourself a favor Daniel and read it. Christ’s church is nothing like Satan’s church. Roman Catholicism is Satan’s church, it has a different gospel, a different god, and a different priesthood. It gets its power from the devil and it has seduced and ushered millions into hell posing as a ” Christian ” church. More like Yankees and Devils.

    Reply

    1. I grew up Catholic and was confirmed in the faith going through several years of religious education classes on the faith. I also converted to non denominational and Protestant for several years as well and saw very little difference in substantive doctrine and I am very familiar with the doctrines of both faiths having spent considerable time with each. And one thing I realized is how grossly out of touch Protestants are regarding Catholic beliefs. What the Vatican teaches and what the everyday catholic believes—grossly wrong and out of touch. I have seen these Protestants take a phrase widely out of context and twist it to mean something miles away from its original intention. Gross misinformation.

       Reply

44. Daniel” gross information ” you are certainly an expert in gross information” The Westminister confession of faith called the Papacy antichrist and you say ” saw very little difference in substanative doctrine” then you say ” im very familiar with the doctrines” sure you are. My sense is you need to familiarize yourself with 2 Thessalonians 2:11. K

    Reply

    1. Kevin, Lets discuss specific Catholic doctrines. What belief/doctrine would you consider Satanic in RCC?

       Reply

45. Let’s look at 2 Thessalonians also.

    He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God

    The reason Caesar Titus and Antiochus Epiphanies share all the same epithets is because both men set up a seemingly identical abomination that causes desolation in the Temple! In 168 B.C. Antiochus Epiphanies set up an idol of a foreign god in the Temple (2 Macc 6:1-2) and sacrificed a pig in the Temple as well (1 Macc 1:59; Wars 1.1.2). This act is called “a desolating sacrilege” in 1 Macc 1:54 and “the abomination that causes desolation” in Daniel 11:31.

    Titus did the same thing! In A.D. 70 while the Temple was inflames the Roman army brought the ensigns (military flags that were idols of Caesar and Rome) to the Temple’s eastern gate and offered sacrifices to them (Wars 6.6.1). There were three animals that were likely sacrificed at this time, a sheep, an ox and a pig; as these were the three sacrifices made in the practice of suovetaurilia, the customary sacrifice made for land purification done especially during the destruction of Temples (Tacitus, Histories 4.53). Did you catch that? Like Antiochus Epiphanies during the first abomination that cause desolation (Dan 11:31), Titus ALSO sacrificed a pig and presided over the worship of foreign gods in the Temple! Since both Titus and Antiochus Epiphanies are responsible for the abomination that causes desolation it is not surprising that both men are given all the same epithets throughout the Bible and Jewish tradition

    As stated above both Titus and Antiochus Epiphanies are called the Little Horn. Antiochus Epiphanies is the Little Horn of Daniel 8. And Titus is the Little Horn of Daniel 7. Concerning Caesar Titus, Daniel 7:25 says, “He will . . . try to change the set times and the laws.” Like Antiochus Epiphanies before him, Titus is not just called the Lawless One because of sin, Titus and Antiochus Epiphanies are called the Lawless One or the man of lawlessness because both men put an end to the practice of the Law. Antiochus Epiphanies put an end to Temple sacrifice for three years before the Jews reacquired control of the Temple and Titus did so permanently when he destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem in AD 70 which has NEVER been rebuilt.

    Reply