Revelation - Babylon
Edmond October 28th, 2004I am not convinced about Babylon = Jerusalem. Please don’t take this as a challenge but rather just some doubts in my mind that need answers.
Please consider the followings :
1. In 1 Peter 5:13, Babylon is inarguably meaning Rome.
2. The New Testament authors took particular care not to mention the name of Rome or the Roman Empire in order not to further upset the Romans, in particular the Emperor. This is why in 1 Peter “Rome” was not named directly. By the same token, Roman persecutions during and after Nero’s (Emperor, murdered in 67AD) time were not mentioned explicitly. This is why not much is about Rome in the New Testament. Further, most of the books in New Testament were written before the Roman persecution.
3. If Babylon=Jerusalem, then Revelation should have been written on or before 67AD, because this is the starting year of the open Jews Revolt against the Romans. It is in this year that the Roman Army attacked Jerusalem the first time. Later, the Roman Army withdrew and went back to Rome because of Nero’s death. They came back to Palestine 2 years latter and destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD.
If John was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem after 70AD, then he was only writing history, not prophesy. If Revelation was written between 67-70AD, then I’ll tend to think it doesn’t take anyone with great wisdom to forecast the downfall of Jerusalem. The Romans ought to come back and destroy.
4. In Revelation 1:10, John stated that the vision was given to him on Island Patmos. According tradition, John was banished to Patmos by Emperor Domitian. Domitian’s ruling was from 81 - 96AD. The traditional saying that Revelation was written around 96AD is much more crediable. If this is true, then the statement saying John was martyred before 70AD is false.
5. In Rev. 17:1, the “harlot” is discribed as “sitting on many waters”. Here “water’” means river. There is no “water” around Jerusalem. In 17:9, seven hills are mentioned; what hills are there nearby Jerusalem? Rome was known to be sitting on 7 hills, and there was (is) a big river in Rome.
6. Finally, let me ask the question : which is the book that John wrote first, The Gospel or the Revelation? It is commonly accepted the the Gospel was written in the 90’s. If this is true, then again John was not dead before 70AD.
I understand you have some tapes by Scott Hahn about this subject. I shall appreciate a lot if you can lent me the tapes.
Best wishes and awaiting your response,
Allen Cheung
One Response to “Revelation - Babylon”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 29th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Dear Allen,
Thank you for your well-articulated argument against
the Jerusalem assumption.
This is great. I really think it’s God’s guiding hand
at work in CMCC BSP that you were moved to write me.
Instead of answering your question immediately, I
would like to use your counter-argument as a means to
stimulate the thinking process of the whole BSP
audience and to give them the opportunity to study
Revelation from both perspectives.
I am sending your well-formulated argument to all BSP
facilitators and through them to all BSP participants
so that they will keep coming back to the points you
made as this year’s program progresses and arguments
are made in favor of the Jerusalem assumption. This
way, the BSP participants will get to see pros and
cons of both perspectives. I will make sure all your
points are addressed in the process.
So, bear with me and have patience. Before the
commencement of this year’s program, I was thankful
that God finally gave me the opportunity to share with
the BSP participants the Book of Revelation. After two
sessions, my excitement becomes even more evident. So,
it’s great that you provided us with further
stimulation. With most contemporary biblical scholars
siding with the Rome assumption, I would have included
it in my “BSP navigation” even if you hadn’t asked.
But now that you have, the necessity becomes even more
compelling.
God bless!
Edmond