Revelation 18

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Bowas

In cross referencing the verse, which is a preferred method of interpretation, we can find where Jesus actually uttered the same language and identified what city is the guilty one.

Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you PROPHETS, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

Mat 23:35 That upon you may come ALL THE RIGHTEOUS BLOOD SHED UPON THE EARTH, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

Mat 23:37 O JERUSALEM, JERUSALEM, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!


Compare that again to this:

Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Rev_18:24 And in her was found THE BLOOD OF PROPHETS, and of saints, and of ALL THAT WERE SLAIN UPON THE EARTH.

It should be pointed out that the language is not identical. Similar, yes, but not identical.

Jerusalem was to be guilty of "all" the prophets and "all" the slain of the earth. Apocalyptic Babylon however was to be guilty of prophets (not "all prophets", just "prophets"). Also, "of all that were slain" indicates that out of all those slain upon the earth, she shared in the blood guilt. Not that EVERYONE slain on the earth was applied to her account.

And in her was found THE BLOOD OF PROPHETS, and of saints, and of ALL THAT WERE SLAIN UPON THE EARTH.

The reading is a triple object: prophets, saints, and of everyone else. Prophets and saints are specifically indefinite, therefore not all-inclusive (contrary to the doom pronounced against earthly Jerusalem). The third part, "of all that were slain" must be likewise indefinite. It means a representative sample out of everyone else. Otherwise, it would include ALL prophets and ALL saints, making them superfluous and redundant additions.

Apocalyptic Babylon is Jerusalem, but not the Jerusalem you think it is. It is not a physical earthly city, anymore than the Heavenly Jerusalem is a physical city. The Heavenly Jerusalem is THE BRIDE. So what then does it's counterpart, Babylon, represent? Not a physical city, but something else.

Just as Heavenly Jerusalem SYMBOLISES the Bride, Babylon SYMBOLISES something in counterpoint. The CITY, in each case, is the SYMBOL, and therefore does not represent an actual physical city. Because that would mean the SYMBOL represents ITSELF, which is contrary to the apocalyptic use of symbols.

Galatians chapter 4 explains the same concept found in the Revelation. But instead of the symbols being Babylon and "new" Jerusalem, the symbols are Hagar/Sinai, and Sarah. And they are explained as representing the two COVENANTS and (more specifically) the TWO PEOPLES INVOLVED. The Pauline contrast is between JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY. That is the same contrast, in essence, found in Revelation.

Moreover, the fact is there is no evidence the Revelation was written before AD 70, but all the evidence points to a mid-late 90s authorship. Which means the vision CANNOT POSSIBLY be simply about the AD 70 destruction of the earthly city of Jerusalem.