Skip to comments.Jerusalem, Mother of Harlots
Posted on 12/31/2010 9:03:44 PM PST by topcat54
By | Published:
Jesus told his listeners, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof (Matt. 21:43). For many people, this verse provides the heart of replacement theologythe idea that the Christian Church has replaced the old physical nation of Israel as Gods chosen people and priestly nation (1 Pet. 2:910, et al).
Without requiring the use of the label replacement, this is essentially what the verse teaches. It does not mean that Jewish people can never again taste of Gods grace, it simply means that the Old Jewish way of Gods witness and work on earththe Old Testament Temple ritual systemwas being abolished. It was being abolished because it was never meant to be permanent, but only a symbol that pointed to the reality of Jesus Christ, the true Temple, the true Emanuel. Those Jews who rejected the true Temple and insisted on clinging to the Old Testament traditions were thereby committing idolatry just as grossly as any pagan ritual. The Kingdom had moved on to its greater fulfillment. Those who refused to embrace the fulfillment found themselves bereft of the true kingdomit would be taken from them, and given to the disciples of the true and faithful people of God.
Jesus denounced the teachers of the Old tradition which led the way in opposing Him. These were the Pharisees, and Christs denunciation of them appears in Matthew 23 among other places. It extends to the whole of the physical city of Jerusalem of which they were representatives in disbelief. Jesus concluded with the prediction that Jerusalem would fall because she was responsible for all the righteous blood shed upon earth and that she was the city that kills the prophets (Matt. 23:35, 37).
From this sweeping condemnation we can learn that the city called Babylon in Revelation 17 and 18 is not the Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar, but Jerusalem called Babylon because she had corrupted herself and become like that ancient pagan Empire:
The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet [colors of the chief priest and the Temple; Ex. 2528; 3839], and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earths abominations (Rev. 17:45).
And how do we know this blasphemous Babylonian mystery whore is indeed Jerusalem? Because she is pronounced guilty of the exclusive crime which Jesus earlier pinned on Jerusalem:
And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, So will Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence, and will be found no more. And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slain on earth (Rev. 17:6, 18:21, 24).
It is not possible that two cities can both be guilty of a crime of which only one party could be guiltykilling all the prophets and all who have been slain in the earth. Jesus clearly attributed this crime to Jerusalem in Matthew 23; so we must conclude that here in Revelation, Babylon is a name of mystery because it symbolizes what Jerusalem had become.
Thus, it is highly likely that when Peter wrote his first epistle from Babylon (1 Pet. 5:13), he was literally writing from Jerusalem, which he had by then already condemned in these last times (1 Pet. 1:20) as Babylon. Peter was, after all, an apostle to the Circumcision as Paul said (Gal. 2:7).
It was not uncommon practice in that window between Christs ascension and Jerusalems destruction that the New Testament writers symbolized Jerusalem with the names of the great enemies of Gods people down through the ages. Thus, Revelation speaks of the great city where the Lord was crucifiedobviously Jerusalemthat symbolically is called Sodom and Egypt (Rev. 11:8).
Some would complain that interpreting the Great Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 as Jerusalem is anti-Semitic. This is ad hominem nonsense. Besides, how anti-Semitic was it of John! Calling Jerusalem Sodom and Egypt instead of praying for her peace as dispensationalists demand we do. The nerve of him.
Thus it is understandable when Paul compares the false teachers creeping in the church to Pharaohs magicians (2 Tim. 3:89). Likewise, Matthew 2 presents Jesus as the New Israel fleeing from the new Pharaoh who kills all the male babies. Except the roles are reversed: Jesus family has to flee into Egypt in order to avoid this new Pharaoh, who is Herod; and the children killed are not Egyptian, they are Jewish. Lesson: Old Israel has become like Egypt, the persecutor of Gods people, and she shall suffer the plague of Egypt, while Jesus is the true Israel.
Keep in mind, it was Herod who then ruled Jerusalem and who had rebuilt the Temple at which the Jews then sacrificed. Once Jesus appeared on the scene as the Final Sacrifice, the sacrifices at the Temple became idolatrous and pagan. It was then rejecting God to continue that system. It was, in fact, to commit the abomination of desolation, because it was an idolatrous sacrifice in the Temple which caused Gods presence to leave that House desolate. Indeed, Gods presence would forever leave that Temple to dwell in the New Temple, His People. This occurred on the day of Pentecost. Within a generation, the idolatrous, adulterous nationthe great whore temple in Jerusalemsuffered a final blow from God. It was destroyed into oblivion.
Thus it is further understandable that the inspired writers would refer to their persecutors and false brethren in their Church as them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan (Rev. 2:9).
Modern day Christians simply do not understand that when they demand the land of Israel for the Old Jewish people so that they may rebuild a Temple and resume sacrifices, they are praying for the rankest and vilest of idolatries to occur. God destroyed that temple for that very reason in AD 70. Why would he now change and desire it to be rebuilt?
You may think that since God did this once before, sending His people into exile with their temple destroyed behind them, then He will do the same againhave them return to rebuild the temple. But this time was different. This time the True Temple came as the rebuilt (resurrected) temple. This time there would be no bricks and mortar, stones cut out with hands. The Old Jewish people were not merely exiled from their kingdom someday to return. No. This time, the kingdom was taken from them and given to the true nation.
Christ created a new bride. Why would Christ desire to return to the whore he has cast aside and divorced when He has a pristine Bride descending from heaven, uncorrupted by idolatry? He didnt. He left that whore riding her patron, the beast of Rome. And the great mother of harlots suffered the judgment of her whoredom. She was divorced and disinherited. The inheritance now belongs to the Bride.
So, just to clarify, within most Christian churches you cannot be a Christian Jew.
Not true. You can be a Christian Jew, a Christian Italian, a Christian Indian. No problemo.
You need to actually visit some Christian churches.
God reports ... You decide.
I was tempted to let the last comment stand, as it’s pretty damning, but I have to ask:
If you’re posting an article such as this one, why not embrace the term “Replacement Theology”? Isn’t that really what you’re all about? I mean, I know that the terms you like to use, expansion or whatever, sounds a bit kinder, but this is one extremely harsh viewpoint expressed in this article. If you posted it, why not embrace what is really being put forth here?
Because the term was invented by futurist opponents. It was not intended to be accurate. I don't think we should allow our position to be uncritically characterized by our opponents.
Supersessionism is better, but I prefer a term like kingdom expansion that best defines the view (as opposed to the kingdom deferred view of the futurists).
It does not mean that Jewish people can never again taste of Gods grace,Unfortunately, our futurist opponents believe that is precisely the issue when they use the term replacement theology, that somehow we believe Jews are incapable of being saved. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We believe in a significant intake of Jewish people into the kingdom by normal gospel means, without the need for the futurist holocaust of their great tribulation. We deny that race plays any part in God's plan for His people. Abraham's seed is without racial distinction.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal. 3)Some folks can't abide such views, so they invent terms like replacement theology to twist our views.
What in the article would you claim is harsh? Perhaps you have to define harsh for me, and ell us whether you think being harsh is always a negative thing.
I’m sure that you like the term “kingdom expansion”. However, it does not reflect the reality of what you believe. Kingdom expansion is what I believe. You deny the Jews their rightful place in God’s kingdom. God would never break His promise. He is not a liar, and that is what your view makes Him out to be.
If you would only do a thorough, critical reading of Romans 11, (with your mind open and heart open to the Holy Spirit) you would see that God is not dealing with the unbelieving Jews by “normal gospel means”. If your view is correct, why would He have “blinded” them or “hardened their hearts”? What would be the reason for that?
There would be no reason to do that if your view was correct.
Quite frankly, reading this article one time through was too much. Calling it harsh wasn’t really getting my point across. I thought it was disgusting.
Im not surprised. If you are misreading the Bible, esp. the NT, preferring your own notions of what constitutes Gods chosen people, then you will no doubt find this article disgusting.
Did you read this article? It basically explains the term.
Kingdom expansion is what I believe.
Sorry, but you believe in kingdom deferred. For you, Jesus is not yet reigning on the throne of his father, David. In fact there is no kingdom, so there can be no King Jesus (yet) in your system. You dont really believe what the NT says about the true nature of the kingdom (spiritual, not carnal).
Since I have many times, what you are saying is that if I would only set aside the text of the Bible and adopt your futurist assumptions, put on your futurist glasses, drink the futurist kool aid, it would all become obvious.
Romans 11 is about unity, not disunity. Its about integration, not racial separation. Its about one people being created, not two being divided. Its about one chosen people, not two.
This is not really clear to you because in the futurist scheme the only part of Romans 11 that really matters is verse 26. You see only Jew when what Paul is really teaching about is root, with its conjoined branches, and the nature of true Israel. Of course you have to read everything in Romans, not just a part of chapter 11, to get Pauls argument.
I look forward to your studied explanation of Romans 11 (in context). Not just the nuh-uhs.
Why can’t you simply answer the question that I posed in post 92?
The only problem is that this is what the "new testament" claims. It's no different than the "holy qur'an" claiming toe invalidate chr*stianity.
For the "old Jewish system" to be temporary and preparatory, it must claim this for itself . . . not have such a claim made only by the religion that claims to be replacing it.