-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Who/What is the "Whore of babylon"?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
There are two contrasting entities in Revelation 17-21:
1. Polluted Woman - Rev. 17
2. Purified woman - Rev. 19
1. Earthly city - Rev. 17:18
2. Heavenly city - Rev. 21
There are true children of God found INSIDE both entities (Rev. 18:4; 19:6-7) and there are children of God found OUTSIDE both entities (Rev. 19:8-9; 17:6; 18:20). Hence, neither entity represents all the children of God (God's kingdom/family).
The Harlot is not the beast because she RIDES the beast and is eventually destroyed by the beast.
The "beast" symbolizes pagan kingdoms/kings and she has a metaphorical illicit union ("forinication") with them. Religion/State union.
Both women represent INSTITUTIONAL religion. The harlot represents polluted institutional religion in union with secular governments. The bride represents the institutional religion seen in concrete form throughout the New Testament - the institutional congregations of Christ.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I feel your pain and understand your sensitivity to this issue. However, your answer has many problems.
John is not merely referring to a geographical location where physical structures exist as this entity is living and exercises influence over WILLING "kings" and "nations." The term "fornication" metaphorically describes a WILLING compliance by both parties rather than force (rape).
Neither is he referring to Rome as a secular government that ruled over the earth as it is the metaphor of "beast" that stands for dominating secular world governments including the Empire ruled by Rome. This definition of "beast" is easily seen in Daniel where much of the imagery of the "beast" in Revelation 13 and 17 comes from.
Instead, "she" is described as riding on the back of the "beast" and eventually destroyed by the last "head and ten horns" of this beast. Hence, she cannot be part of the beast.
This "whore" and "city" is more than a mere geographical site and material buildings on that site but refers to a ruling influence currently found at that geographical location when John wrote, that is different than secular rule but something that dominates secular rule and will be ultimately be destroyed by secular rule.
She is pagan instutionalized religion that not only ruled over the secular Roman empire from this city but had ruled over and will continue to rule over secular governments until secular governments have no further need (atheistic) of her.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
LOL! You feel my back pain? I pulled a muscle and its really getting on my nerves! Or have you turned into Bill Clinton? (Just Josh'n with you).
I don't see how my answer has many problems. I just quoted the bible because in this case it does interpret the vision. John wondered at the vision and the angle explained it to him. And its clear the whore is a city. Now the very fact that; that city influences world leadership, and cultural norms is also an aspect of what John is speaking of. Knowing history Babylon, long before Rome exported its values, later was Athens and then was Rome. And today its the United States based in Washington though interestingly enough it seems what is normative for values is exported from New York or Los Angeles. More New York however than Los Angeles. In the late 1800s and early 1900's it was London. However, whatever city is the influencing factor on the world at large putting forth the world value system. However, from the bible it is clear that there is a city in mind which exports the values of world leardership. Soon it seems there will be another shift from the ole US of A to either Brussels or Peking or even Moscow. However, in any case it isn't the Vatican as the world for the large part is ignoring its values to include many of its own members. However the bible is clear which I why all I had to do was quote it.
Q
I
Quoting the text does not interpret the vision IF you separate that text from the rest of the context which is necessary to understand that text.
The other metaphorical woman that is contrasted to this whore is also called a "city" (Rev. 21). However, she is not literally the elements that comprise that city nor is she the only resident in that city but she is called a "city" because she is the honored resident which that city identifies with.
Likewise, with the whore. She is the resident that city is identified with. Moreover, she is equally identified as "MYSTERY" Babylone which defines her as a RELIGIOUS entity not a secular entity.
Now you are getting closer to the truth. She is called "MYSTERY" Babylon which refers to RELIGOUS VALUES not secular values. Her RELIGOUS values dominate everything about her including her secular activities.
She does not export the values of "world leadership" but rather DOMINATES or controls world leadership by her RELIGIOUS VALUES. World leadership eventually DESTROYS her when it is rejects her RELIGIOUS VALUES.
I pulled a muscle in my neck last night and I do feel the pain of that too.
I
Quoting the text does not interpret the vision IF you separate that text from the rest of the context which is necessary to understand that text.
The other metaphorical woman that is contrasted to this whore is also called a "city" (Rev. 21). However, she is not literally the elements that comprise that city nor is she the only resident in that city but she is called a "city" because she is the honored resident which that city identifies with.
Likewise, with the whore. She is the resident that city is identified with. Moreover, she is equally identified as "MYSTERY" Babylone which defines her as a RELIGIOUS entity not a secular entity.
Now you are getting closer to the truth. She is called "MYSTERY" Babylon which refers to RELIGOUS VALUES not secular values. Her RELIGOUS values dominate everything about her including her secular activities.
She does not export the values of "world leadership" but rather DOMINATES or controls world leadership by her RELIGIOUS VALUES. World leadership eventually DESTROYS her when it is rejects her RELIGIOUS VALUES.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Sorry to hear that.
You are right quoting a verse doesn't interpret a vision. However, in the case of this particular vision an angel interpreted the vision for John and John recorded that interpretation and I quoted that interpretation.
Note all values proceed from a religious principle. Which even atheist have. Those who export values dominate those who adhere to those values. Note the city spoken of is also a commerse hub.
No problem with that. However, that is not the only interpretative text in this context and that is where the problem begins.
You speak in generalizations but the context speaks in specific values (Rev. 17:5) or "MYSTERY" Babylon which clearly and necessarily infers to the first century readers that it is RELIGIOUS values that define her power.
Which even atheist have. Those who export values dominate those who adhere to those values. Note the city spoken of is also a commerse hub.[/QUOTE]
And their dead bodies lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. Rev 11:8
You are jerking one text out of another completely different context to interpret another text in another context. The two cities are not the same and it is self evident by each context.
The "city" in Revelation 11 refers to Jerusalem whereas the "city" in Revelation 18 is that city that was "ruling" over the kings of the earth when John penned those words. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was by the "city" which ruled over the world when John wrote. Jerusalem was enslaved by Rome rather than ruled over Rome or any other king or kingdom in the world during John's life.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I wouldn't disagree with your assesment as one can not be unfaithful unless one were bound covenantly to another such as Jerusalem. One of the canidates for John's Apocalypse. I personally hold that John is speaking in the current context of his writing and he can mean either Rome or Jerusalem. However, knowing many protestant hold to an eschatology which includes this vision I proferred other cities that can be equally held as possiblities with that end in view.
So you believe that the city that was destroyed by Rome was actually ruling over Rome and all other kings and kingdoms when John penned Revelation 17:18?? It is in the present tense you know.
We've had this conversation before:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1742188#post1742188
I certainly agree with what I bolded in red, the book was written during the sixth head of the beast, which was Rome.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I said one of the two canidates. I lean towards Jerusalem personally. As the Abomination of desolation which both Daniel and Jesus spoke of occured when Caligula errected a statue of himself in the Temple at Jerusalem in 40 AD causing rioting and the taking down of that statue however it led to a rebelion culminating in the destruction of both the City of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. Also in the old judaic religious system. If you read the histories of the chaos and horrible things that occured during the siege of Jerusalem it fits pretty well with Johns Apocalypse. However, like Antiochus Epiphanies was a forshadowing of the Anti-Christ spoken of by Daniel it could be that this model for events could similarily happen in the future. BTW as far as rulling over Rome Certainly Rome had to respond to events occuring in Jerusalem rather than causing the events themselves. Jersualem directed the decisions of How the empire opperated in that area. And as we see in the NT the "world" isn't usually meant globally but to the entire roman empire and so many Kings were beholden to the Emperor. Certainly in the east. And in the End the Christianizing of Rome lead to the end of Pagan religion in that city some 400 - 500 years later.
Yes, and you are as wrong now as then. It is a rediculous intepretation that demands the "city" which was destroyed by Rome ruled not only over Rome but all kingdoms of the world. You are jerking texts out of context and pitting one truth against another truth. Your position is driven by an eschatalogical theory rather than historical facts.
Any student of history realizes immediately that Jersulem did not rule over the kingdoms of the world when John wrote but was ruled over by Rome.
The only thing ridiculous here is the extent of your bigoted attitude.
Stop misquoting scripture, she 'reigneth over the kings of the earth [the land]', terra firma NOT kosmos.
Educate yourself:
Identity of Babylon in Revelation Made Easy
First, I did not quote the text but paraphrased it. Second your point is moot because it means the kings on the face of this world we live on.
Third, I said your interpretation was rediculous rather than making any attack on your person whereas you attacked my person "your bigoted attitude."
Fourth, I provided REASONS not "bigoted attitudes".
Again, Jerusalem did not rule over any kings but was a nation in slavery to Rome and it is rediculous to intepret Revelation 17 as referring to Jerusalem which had not exercised any rule over any kings in any way since their Babylon captivity right up to the present day.
I don't care to get into trading insults with you. However, you need to be re-educated in this matter as your interpretation is driven by eschatalogical motives rather than sound Biblical exegesis. These are two different cities in two different contexts. The "city" in Revelation 12 continues to exist in its type of rule right up to the battle of Armegeddon whereas Jersualem ceased to exist in A.D. 70 and is still not free from subjugation to this present day.
The ten kings which destroy her had not even arisen at the time John wrote this but the germanic kingdoms did exist when John wrote this. The time of her destruction was not A.D. 70 as in the case of literal Jerusalem but in the "hour" wherein the not yet arisen kings would join with the Antichrist to fight Christ at HIS SECOND COMING:
Reve. 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
14 ¶ These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them:
Your paraphrase was a misreprentation of scripture and your opinion moots nothing.
You think you're above having a 'bigoted attitude'? I never attacked your person, I said your attitude sucks.
You provided YOUR opinions, which are flawed.
Again, we've had this discussion before:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1742188#post1742188
Again, Jerusalem did not rule over any kings but was a nation in slavery to Rome and it is rediculous to intepret Revelation 17 as referring to Jerusalem which had not exercised any rule over any kings in any way since their Babylon captivity right up to the present day.
Note the contextual relationship between the exact time these kings destroy the whore and when Christ subjugates all kingdoms of this world:
Rev. 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
1. It is YET FUTURE from John's day as those kings had not yet arisen. However, the Germanic tribes were alive and well in the day of John. Rome had already employed their armies BEFORE John wrote this. Hence, it cannot refer to Germanic tribes/kings/kingdoms. Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70 and the germanic tribes did not destroy her but Rome destroyed her. The germanic tribes did not come into world rule until 476 A.D. and that was with the fall of Rome not the fall of Jerusalem.
2. Her destruction is pinpointedly restricted to a yet FUTURE time from John within a specified "one hour" of time WHEN these kings receive their power from the beast, when they also unite in going to "war" with Christ. No such war occurred in A.D. 70, no such war has occurred since.
3. Her fall coincides with the declaration that the rule of God over the whole earth has been obtained - Rev. 19:1-5. This "one hour" occurs at THE END OF THIS AGE which concludes with the "war" at Armageddon where Christ defeats the kings of this earth and the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of God.