Is Jerusalem Babylon the Great?

The destruction of Babylon the Great has a finality to it: "Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, "Thus with violence the great city Babylon shall be thrown down, and shall not be found anymore." Rev18.21

I can see several reasons to identify Jerusalem as Babylon the Great.  Revelation refers to Jerusalem as "the great city" that is "spiritually" "called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." Rev11.8
Rev18.24 tells us that in Babylon the Great was "found the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who were slain on the earth."
Jesus said, ""O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her." Mat23.37 "it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem." Lk13.33

Reference is made of "the great city" being divided into 3 parts by an earthquake. Rev16.19 This would seem to be Jerusalem.  The same verse then says, "and great Babylon was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath." Are 2 cities in view or one here?

The "woman" (and "harlot") is later identified as Babylon the great and is called "that great city." Rev17.18 Are all references to "the great city" the same?

Zechariah speaks of how God will make Jerusalem a "cup of drunkenness" for all the surrounding people, 12.2." This sounds a little like Rev18.3, but in Zechariah, the nations will gather against Jerusalem, while in Rev18, the kings and merchants of the earth have benefitted from Babylon the Great.  "For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich through the abundance of her luxury."

Zechariah 12 speaks of God making it difficult for the nations who gather against her.  God will restore Jerusalem. "And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it." 12.3
This sounds like God will not let the nations destroy the city.  We know that the 10 kings of the beast's kingdom will destroy Babylon the Great: "And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire. For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled." Rev17.16-17. God will cut in pieces those who would heave Jerusalem away, but God puts in the hearts of kings to destroy Babylon the Great.  Can God both protect and destroy Jerusalem?

We also read that Jerusalem will be "inhabited again, in her own place." Zech12.6 The word "again" and "own place" doesn't work well with the fact Babylon the Great will be destroyed and never inhabited.  The only way it can work for Jerusalem to be Babylon the Great is that the Jerusalem of Zechariah will be in another place, and her "own place" is not her former place. 

One other issue is the timing of the destruction of Babylon the Great.  There is the belief that it goes through 2 stages of destruction, first by the 10 kings, and then later by God.  Maybe the destruction by the kings doesn't render it uninhabitable, but the warning to flee from her seems to do suggest the destruction is great.  It seems whether 1 or 2 stages of destruction, it happens after the coming of Christ.  Jesus returns to the mount of Olives, and Jews will be fleeing the city at that time. Does all that happens at the coming of Christ fit with Jerusalem being Babylon the Great?  Zech14: "For I will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem; The city shall be taken, The houses rifled, And the women ravished. Half of the city shall go into captivity, But the remnant of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then the LORD will go forth And fight against those nations, As He fights in the day of battle. And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, Which faces Jerusalem on the east. And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two, From east to west, Making a very large valley; Half of the mountain shall move toward the north And half of it toward the south....".  This doesn't seem to fit with the destruction of Babylon the Great in Revelation 18, unless it happens after that time.  It seems difficult to reconcile the destruction of Babylon the Great with everything that will happen in Jerusalem in Zechariah.  It seems like to make every thing fit time wise would require the destruction of Babylon the Great by the 10 kings to be after Jesus returns according to the scene of Zechariah 14. 

Body Parts Removal

...it is more profitable for you that one of your members [body parts] perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 

Matthew 5:29

Jesus said some very hard things.  He said:  If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.  And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. Matthew 5:29-30

These words reveal the seriousness of sin, so serious that if sin sends you to Hell, and it is caused by a body part, then remove that body part.  It would be better to miss a body part, to avoid sin, than to be cast into Hell with that body part that causes the sin.   

We know elsewhere in Scripture that removing body parts is not God's solution to our sin problem, but what Jesus said reveals the seriousness of the sin problem, and his words should cause one to seek what that solution is.  The solution is in Jesus dying on the cross to bear the penalty (consequences) that our sins required.  But that solution will not be meaningful until one sees the seriousness of sin and its consequences.  God has provided for the consequences of sin in the person and work of Christ.  That provision promises salvation (forgiveness of sins, justification, and eternal life) to all who believe in Jesus for it.  Through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins;  and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.   Acts 13:38-39

Shake off the dust

Jesus instructed the 12 Apostles on how to respond to people when he sent them out:  

"Now whatever city or town you enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and stay there till you go out. 12 And when you go into a household, greet it. 13 If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet." 

Matthew 10:11-14

I think the shaking of dust off the feet or garments by the messenger signified that they were now clean from those they had warned: they would no longer be held accountable for those individuals.  

Another figure of speech connected with this is "your blood is on your own heads."  We see this concerning the Jews who rejected the message of the Apostle Paul that Jesus was the Christ: "But when they opposed him and blasphemed, he shook his garments and said to them, 'Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.'" Acts 18:6   

He was in effect saying to them: "I told you and you did not believe me, so I'm no longer responsible for what happens to you; I am clean of you."   

A Prophet's Reward

[Jesus said]  41 "He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward." Matthew 10:41

There are reasons to believe that there are rewards in heaven that the believer in Christ will receive because of their faithfulness to Christ.  The words above could be a reference to such heavenly rewards, but I tend to think that rewards in this life are referenced above.

What exactly is a prophet's reward or a righteous man's reward?  We are not told.    I tend to think it could be what they have to offer as a prophet or a righteous man.  If one receives either, you receive what they have to offer:  you benefit from what is unique about their lives and ministry.

If you receive a missionary into your home, you get to have fellowship with them; you can hear their experiences.  It can be an enriching experience.  They can become lifelong friends, almost like family. There are different ways God may bless you in this life for receiving them.  

Jesus instructed the 12 Apostles on how to respond to people when he sent them out:  "Now whatever city or town you enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and stay there till you go out. 12 And when you go into a household, greet it. 13 If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you." Matthew 10:11-13

To receive the truth about Jesus as the Christ will bring salvation, but as Jesus said to the Apostles, if the household is worthy and you stay with them, "let your peace come upon it."  That would be a present, temporal kind of benefit.

Jesus clearly spoke of temporal rewards or benefits for faithfulness and sacrifice in addition to persecution.  "So Jesus answered and said, 'Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel's, 30 who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time—houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions—and in the age to come, eternal life. Mark 10:29-30   

Faithfulness doesn't mean one can only expect persecution in this life or rewards in the next.  I might add that if the receiving of a prophet and righteous man can bring with it reward in this life, it is a reason to serve the Lord, because the kind of reward they bring may have the impact on your life that you need.   Have you ever heard the stories that the Gideons tell about the salvation of those who found a Gideon Bible?  Have you ever heard the stories of Bible translators who work for Wycliffe translators?  Inviting these people into your homes, spending time with them--maybe getting involved with them--may benefit you, change your life. They may become a part of your life as well.  Receiving such people has its rewards.

The heresy of Grace Evangelical Society

Wilson identifies the “Universal Propitiation” view of Hodges, Wilken, and GES as heresy.  There are those who hold to this view that disagree with GES on the “Content of Saving Faith” (COSF) or know nothing about GES and their views.   I think Wilson doesn’t understand that that view he calls “universal propitiation” makes a distinction between forensic forgiveness (which must be inseparable from the propitiation accomplished at the cross) and fellowship forgiveness.  I think this is why Wilson is critical of Hodges, because Hodges believes in a forensic forgiveness of all sins for all people, and yet Hodges believed that one is not forgiven until they believe, but Hodges, and many others, believe this is fellowship forgiveness, not forensic forgiveness.   This belief in “universal propitiation” seems common among free grace people, and even among those who don’t hold to GES’s COSF or know anything about them.  If it is a heresy, it is very common among Free Grace people.  I, however, believe that forensic remission of sins is not received until one believes in Christ as Savior from sin, so I am in alignment with Wilson and at odds with GES and many Free Grace people on that particular issue, but I don't believe it is a heresy.

Wilson is critical about GES’s understanding of Eternal Life as Eternal Security.  Wilson is seeking to argue that if one has to understand eternal life as eternal security, then hardly anyone has been saved throughout time.  One can be opposed to Hodges’ COSF, and yet believe that if one does not believe in eternal security when they believe the gospel, then they haven’t believed in the gospel correctly.  I tend to agree with Wilson on this as well. 

I have understood “eternal life” as primarily qualitative--a quality of life.  Even though I probably have more books by Zane Hodges than any other author, and I used his commentaries when I taught through James, Hebrews, First John, and First Peter, I didn’t really discern that he was understanding the words “eternal life” as “eternal security.”  I started to sense that though as I would listen to his discussion on “assurance is OF the essence of saving faith.”  Though I do agree firmly that assurance is OF THE ESSENCE of saving faith, I may have not understood what he was saying, if he meant the assurance was in eternal security.  I understood the assurance in the message to be believed was the promise of salvation or eternal life; that is, I am believing a promise from God, and that is the assurance; if I don't have the assurance of eternal life, then what have I believed in? 

I would identify the content of John 3:16’s “should not perish but have everlasting life” as assurance.  Now I have heard Dr. Wilkin say often that “everlasting life is everlasting,” and I took him to mean eternal security, but that’s where I didn’t quite agree with him, because I understood eternal life as primarily qualitative, though it is forever as well.  I believe in eternal security, but I don’t think the primary meaning of everlasting/eternal life is eternal security.  

Wilson said that everyone has everlasting life, because we live forever.  I'm not aware of any Scripture that says everyone has everlasting life, for that terminology is used with reference to what one can have or does have who believe in Jesus.  The contrast is made between perishing and eternal life.  The unsaved may live in some form forever, but it is perishing, not everlasting life.  I believe it's about a quality of life.  So here again, I appear to be more in line with Wilson that GES on the meaning of "eternal/ everlasting life."

Concerning the COSF, I believe there are 2 pieces of information that are usually divided up as what one is to believe and what happens when one believes it.  These two things are usually identified as the gospel and the response to the gospel, or maybe, intellectual assent and trust (the 2 of 3 aspects of faith such as Evangelist Larry Moyer promotes.  The first aspect is knowledge.).  I think Hodges was referring to these two things as the “two step.”  I think Hodges combined these two pieces into one statement to be believed, to avoid the two-step or intellectual assent and trust approach.  Of course, his COSF didn’t require certain content others believe should be necessary.  His COSF was “cross-less,” “minimalist,” and it was “faith in faith,” or more of the response to but not the gospel itself.  

Obviously, no one would just say to someone that Jesus died for your sins, was buried, and rose again, and then say nothing else about it, if they were seeking to evangelize.  Obviously, not everyone is automatically saved, if an universal propitiation or an universal forensic forgiveness of sins (which Wilson rejects)—for one has to believe to be saved.  

So does one have to believe they are saved by faith to be saved by faith?  It kind of seems to me they do—even if you say it’s the response to and not the gospel.  You can argue that it is not what saves you, but you do have to believe it.  Jesus did tell the woman that her faith saved her, Luke 7:50: "Your faith has saved you, go in peace."

I think Hodges' COSF seeks to avoid the two-step (as in the two of the three so-called aspects of faith, being intellectual assent and trust): Hodges combines it into one step.  

Wilson thinks one can be saved as long as they believe in Jesus as God and Savior, even though one also adds works for salvation. Interestingly, Wilson doesn't believe this is heresy, but just error.   Were the Jews saved who said one had to be circumcised to be saved?  They obviously didn’t believe in faith alone.  But did they add circumcision from the beginning or later?  If later, then they had “fallen from grace” (Gal 5.1-4).  But if from the beginning, then I would be concerned, though since they were already Jews and circumcised, it probably wasn’t on their minds when they first believed.   

I do think that one could not get to that COSF Hodges held to without some prior knowledge and belief.  It is a hypothetical situation to say that if one could believe Hodges’ COSF, they would be saved, even though they didn’t know and believe the things that one typical does before that belief that results in salvation.   

But there is going to still be debate on what content is pre-salvation-content and what is necessary salvation content.   If one believes that Jesus is God and Savior from sin, are they saved, as Wilson believes, even though they weren’t thinking in the terms of Jesus bearing their sins on the cross to God’s satisfaction?  Is the message of the cross prerequisite knowledge or final-content knowledge?   Is the message of the cross essential or helpful knowledge?  I think I need to read Wilson again to know exactly how the message of the cross fits in, because I mainly remember him saying one must believe in Jesus as God and Savior to be saved.  Hodges believed Jesus was the guarantor of eternal life to all those who believed in him for it.  Wilson pointed out that Hodges’ view didn’t require one to know that Jesus was God, but it did require the belief that eternal life is eternal security.

I already said that I believe eternal life is qualitative.  I understand that to mean life with God: to have eternal life is to have a quality of life, which will be life with God.  Since God is in view for all of this, since it is with reference to him, I either have eternal life or I don’t-- it seems that I must understand something as to why I don’t already have eternal life, naturally.  Obviously, sin is the reason we don’t naturally have eternal life.  I would understand that Jesus being savior from sin and being given eternal life as the same thing, ultimately.   Sin brought death, the “wages of sin,” but through the forensic forgiveness of sins, I am given eternal life:  I am made alive, born again, and I will be raised up.   But if I believe in Jesus as Savior from sin or for eternal life, for me, it means the same thing.  And though it would require prerequisite knowledge, to believe in who this Jesus is, who can make such a thing possible, I do have to believe in Jesus’ divine authority, whether he is God or the son of God.   I think that believing Jesus is the Christ is to believe he is the son of God—Peter, Nathanial, Samaritans, and the High Priest understood this.  Jesus had the authority to forgive sins, which the Pharisees said only God could do.  I think that one would have to have some prerequisite knowledge and belief about who Christ was to believe his COSF.   If one could hypothetically get to Hodges' COSF without that knowledge, I would wonder why or how one would believe it.   It seems the authority would not be there, and the Divine connection and promise missing.

If one believed in Jesus as the son of God who saves from sin through his death and gives eternal life to those who believe in him for it, you have Wilson’s 2 primary beliefs about Jesus, as the Son of God and Savior from sin.  You have a content that is somewhat similar to Hodges' but more fully acknowledges Jesus as the Son of God and combines the provision and the promise: Jesus is Savior from sin for those who believe in him for it.  

Last days and Scoffers

Peter writes of scoffers who are to be expected in the "Last Days."  That period can have a broad time reference (see Hebrews 1.2), but Peter may have in view a time beyond his own life-time.

Knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation. 2 Peter 3.3-4

Their identity is uncertain. Scoffing at the expectation of the coming of Christ by the unsaved would be nothing unusual, so I think this must be a reference to those who have some association with Christianity, and we do see that they make reference to the "fathers" having fallen asleep. But who are the fathers, and why make reference to them and then refer to the beginning of creation as a reference point? I would tend to think the fathers are the early church fathers--as they are referred to by some, and the scoffers are first referencing them, and then they go all the way back to the beginning of creation. There point is that nothing of note has happened that hasn't been happening throughout time that would indicate the coming of Christ is near. There's nothing to "hang your hat on."

I suspect these are liberal Christians who typically question the authority of Scripture and are skeptical of eschatological expectations.

Their scoffing suggests an expectation of an event or events that would signify or precede the Coming of Christ. This seems to be a typical expectation.

The disciples of Christ asked Jesus what signs would precede the Second Coming and the end of the age. In Matthew 24.3-8, Jesus answers the question. He speaks of those things one might normally associate with the expectation that Christ's coming and the end is near. But Jesus said these things must come to pass, and the end is not yet.

The things Jesus references are things one might expect to signify the Coming of Christ (COC) or the end of the age is near. It's typical to think this way. Major wars have led to such speculation. Some people count earthquakes. Is Covid 19, that has gone global and is still with us a year later a "pestilence?"

But Jesus said that "the end is not yet." What is Jesus telling us?  I believe He is saying don't "jump the gun." We don't want to be scoffers, but we need to be discerning.

Some believe Jesus spoke more specifically of the "70th Week" events, being represented in the "seals" of Revelation, but others say it speaks of the period between His First and Second Comings. If those things are the same as the seals of Revelation, during the 70th Week, then when they begin, we should know the time is short, with less than 7 years to go. But if they are concerning events between his comings, which I tend to think they are, one should realize these things will happen, and they are not specific enough to know how close to the Second Coming we are. But the temptation has always been to see major world events as an indication that the end is near.

In 2 Peter 3.5-7, Peter points out that the Flood was an event the scoffers choose to forget, but it was a Divine event that reveals they are wrong. There has been an event in history clearly unusual, beyond that which is merely natural.

The Flood was divine judgment on the world, and it is set forth as how it will be at the COC, though it will have some "hang your hat on" indictors of its approaching occurrence.

I believe Peter clearly connects the COC with the Day of the Lord (DOL). They can be used interchangeably as a Day of judgment on the world and coming like a "Thief." 2 Peter 3.8-10 says the DOL will come as a "Thief." All the "thief" references speak of how it comes on people who are unprepared: it comes as destruction: see John 10.10; Matthew 24.36-44; 1 Thes 5.1-3; Rev 16.15 (in connection with Bowl 6 and approaching Armageddon).

There are no specific fulfillments as of yet, nothing to "hang your hat on," but there are some curious events that may be getting us closer. We don't want to be a scoffer or jump the gun.

The Covid virus and the vaccine are not the "Mark of the Beast." The timing is not right, nor can it be just a vaccine. The Mark must involve a state of mind that confirms one's conscience in a state of unbelief about salvation through Christ. However, how this virus has affected the world, and the way it has been handled, along with a vaccine that the world needs, and how it may be part of a required verification system to move about freely could be how the Mark comes about and works: you need the Mark to buy and sell. I still do not understand the Mark's nature as being eternally condemning.

There's also the Abrahamic Accords that has stated agreements between Israel and some Arab countries. Some may anticipate something similar to this that starts the 70th Week of Daniel, the last 7 years before the COC, as revealed in Daniel 9.27.

It's also interesting that the Saudis recently stated that the Temple Mount holds no interest for Islam. Israel gave custodianship of the Temple Mount to Jordan. So what could happen if this changes? It is believed, prophetically--and this is "hang your hat on"--stuff, a temple or tabernacle has to exist for what Daniel 9.27 and what Jesus and Paul spoke concerning, being the "abomination of desolation": Matthew 24.15; 2 Thes 2.3-4. These things must precede the COC and DOL.

How should we answer the claim that "we are in the last days, and Christians are not prepared for it?"

I don't think we are there yet, but even if we were, what should we do? Being a "prepper" is a lot of work and expense. I think we should live wisely, prepare as we can, and do what is always required as a believer, abiding in God's word.

“What must I do to be saved?

Click on image for full screen.