The Woman

[John Reece]

I've read Chilton's explanation before. I do not find it satisfactory. The Jews absolutely did not have any reign over the nations, spiritual or otherwise. God only gave the Jews power when they were obedient, not when they were wicked. And he took their kingdom away in the Old Testament because they were wicked. Saying that Jerusalem reigned over the kings of the earth seems incredibly weak.

What impresses me is what Josephus ― writing as an eye-witness historian of the A.D. 70 events centered in Jerusalem ― said:

Josephus points out repeatedly that the nations had historically recognized the sanctity and centrality of the Temple: "This celebrated place ... was esteemed holy by all mankind" (The Jewish War, v.i.3; cf. v.ix.4; v.xiii.6). In fact, the action of Jewish rebels, in the summer of A.D. 66, of halting the daily sacrifices for the Emperor (in violation, Josephs points out, of long-standing practice) was the single event which finally precipitated the Roman war against the Jews (ii.xvii.2-4). Even at the very end, as Titus prepared to raze the city to the ground, he was still pleading with the Jewish priests to offer up the sacrifices, which by now had been entirely discontinued (vi.ii.1).

It is possible that Revelation 11:8 is referring to Jerusalem, and that there are two great cities.

The term in all occurrences thereof is "the great city": ἡ πόλις ἡ μεγάλη. It does not seem likely that the author of Revelation would have been referring to two different cities both referred to as "the great city"

[Obsidian]

What impresses me is what Josephus ― writing as an eye-witness historian of the A.D. 70 events centered in Jerusalem ― said:

All the quotation shows is that Titus was a decent man. It doesn't document any reign over the nations.

Again, I also ask: Where does the Bible even prescribe making sacrifices on behalf of Caesar?

It does not seem likely that the author of Revelation would have been referring to two different cities both referred to as "the great city"

I am open to the possibility that they are both Rome, and that the description of the crucifixion is a metaphor of some kind. But truly, I don't see any problem with having two great cities both described by the word "the." Assuming that the book is describing both Jerusalem and Rome in some way, then the book would obviously be aiming for parallels between the two destructions.

[seanD]

According to this website, the area covered by ancient mainland Tyre is now underwater.

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apc...3&article=1790

As much as I hate to say this, you got to be wary of "apologetic" sources. I actually checked some neutral sources and it appears that the actual ancient city of Tyre and its ruins are submerged in the ocean (as a result of Alexander the Great's conquest), other parts of the actual island are littered with old Greco-Roman ruins and being preserved as a historic sight, while others parts of the island have been re-inhabited with new construction. So I guess it comes to exactly what the prophecy was referring to. The old city of Tyre, as in its ruins, or the actual location. If the former is true, then the prophecy has been fulfilled in its entirety.

[John Reece]

All the quotation shows is that Titus was a decent man. It doesn't document any reign over the nations.

You appear to have a mental filter through which you see things.

The quotation says Josephus points out repeatedly that the nations had historically recognized the sanctity and centrality of the Temple: "This celebrated place ... was esteemed holy by all mankind" (The Jewish War, v.i.3; cf. v.ix.4; v.xiii.6).

However, all you see is that it "shows that Titus was a decent man".

I am open to the possibility that they are both Rome, and that the description of the crucifixion is a metaphor of some kind. But truly, I don't see any problem with having two great cities both described by the word "the." Assuming that the book is describing both Jerusalem and Rome in some way, then the book would obviously be aiming for parallels between the two destructions.

What do you make of the concluding clause re the great city in Rv 11:8: "where their Lord was crucified"?

[Obsidian]

"This celebrated place ... was esteemed holy by all mankind"

I just don't really see how that amounts to a reign. Were there any actual "kings of the earth" who were obeying what the Jewish priests told them to do?

What do you make of the concluding clause re the great city in Rv 11:8: "where their Lord was crucified"?

I already said that I can't figure out Revelation 11 via any paradigm.

[Obsidian]

@John Reece

Why did you delete your last comment? Did you change your mind about it? I was in the process of formulating the proper response.

I will say that the Bible does speak prophetically about Rome as an empire. I will concede that I can't think of anywhere (other than arguably Revelation) that speaks about Rome as a city.

Daniel 7
7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.
8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

Revelation 17
3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5 And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.

The main question at issue deals with what the precise relationship is between Babylon and the dragon.

The only other verse of the Bible that specifically mentions "Babylon" is this one:

1 Peter 5
13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

But that verse offers virtually no context to help us out. The only arguable clues are that Silvanus (verse 12) and Marcus (verse 13) are mentioned. Both of those people seem to hang out with Paul among the gentile areas.

[John Reece]

@John Reece

Why did you delete your last comment? Did you change your mind about it?

Yes. Among other things, it was too long and said too much. It was a loose stream of consciousness product that required more editing and qualification than I had energy to do last evening; so, the only correction I could make at the time was to simply delete it.

I will say that the Bible does speak prophetically about Rome as an empire. I will concede that I can't think of anywhere (other than arguably Revelation) that speaks about Rome as a city.

Agreed.

(color emphasis added by JR)Daniel 7
7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.
8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

Revelation 17
3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5 And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.

The woman and the beast cannot be one and the same thing. They are necessarily related but distinguished one from the other. I submit that the woman is apostate Jersalem, about which Jesus had so very much to say and with regard to which he predicted judgment and destruction within the lifetime of his hearers.

35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.

The great city in Rev 11:8 is obviously Jerusalem, because it is the city wherein "their Lord was crucified".

The great city in Rev 17:18 is evidently Jerusalem, because the woman is not the beast and is therefore not Rome but rather apostate Jerusalem.

the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages. 16 The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostituteThe woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth

Read Josephus for an accounting of the magnitude of the fall of the city of Jerusalem.

[Obsidian]

What is your explanation for why the woman is in the wilderness?

[John Reece]

From the beginning of the OP:

It really seems to me like the following two women are actually the same person. Obviously, they are both women. One goes into the wilderness for a while. The other one is found out in the wilderness. Also, the first woman escapes for a time. Unless the second woman is her, then we never hear from her again. It seems like we would want to find out what happens to the first one, and the book would want to tell us.

Snip to last post:

What is your explanation for why the woman is in the wilderness?

The woman in Rev 12 is not the woman in Rev 17.

The woman in Rev 12:5 gives birth to a son, a male, who is to rule all nations with a rod of iron = an allusion to Psalm 2 = a messianic psalm = a psalm about Christ.

In Rev 12:6 that woman fled into the wilderness because she had a place there prepared by God, where she was nourished and protected during a period of wrath and judgment due to apostasy (on the part of unfaithful Israel/Jerusalem) from the Covenant.

The first woman (whom we read about in Rev 12) is symbolically inclusive of faithful Israel/the Church/Mary; and, in due course, New Jerusalem.

The second woman (whom we see in Rev 17) is apostate Jerusalem, the harlot that was destined to be divorced by God and utterly destroyed in the quite near (as of then) future (Rev 1:1, 3; 22:6, 7, 10, 20.)

[Obsidian]

That really does not answer the question I asked. To clarify, why is the second woman (or second sighting of the woman) in the wilderness?

[John Reece]

That really does not answer the question I asked. To clarify, why is the second woman (or second sighting of the woman) in the wilderness?

How about citing the verse or verses to which you are referring.

[Obsidian]

I'm pretty sure that I already did, on the first page.

12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

[John Reece]

17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

The text does not say that the woman was in the wilderness.

Rev 17:3. καὶ ἀπήνεγκέν με εἰς ἔρημον ἐν πνεύματι (and he carried me away into a wilderness in spirit).

Καὶ εἶδον γυναῖκα καθημένην ἐπὶ θηρίον κόκκινον, γέμον[τα] ὀνόματα βλασφημίας, ἔχων κεφαλὰς ἑπτὰ καὶ κέρατα δέκα (And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns).

From The Revelation of Saint John (Black's New Testament Commentary; London: A & C Black, 2006), by Ian Boxall:

It is unclear whether the wilderness is the location of the prostitute, or simply the vantage point from which John views her (cf. 21:10, where John views the new Jerusalem from a high mountain). The woman clothed with the sun was pursued by the dragon into the wilderness, but she encountered it as a place of refuge and nourishment (12:6, 14). If the wilderness is the location of the prostitute here, it does not have the positive connotations. If it is John's situation, then it is the place to which he must go in order to learn true discernment, albeit with angelic assistance (some might detect parallels with Jesus' wilderness experience, and that of the Exodus people of Israel).

[Obsidian]

I find it pretty dubious that John would even mention the wilderness if the whore were not there. Your comparison to the mountain in Revelation 21 fits my point better than yours. Based on Isaiah 2, it seems likely that John went to the mountain so that he could see the New Jerusalem land on the mountain. He didn't go to the mountain for no reason. Earlier in the book in Revelation 4, John was taken to heaven so he could see things happening in heaven. Similarly, he most likely went to the wilderness so that he could see the whore who was in the wilderness.

And if we assume that the fleeing woman was running away from Jerusalem into the wilderness, I don't think it makes sense to say that Jerusalem itself was the wilderness.

[John Reece]

Your comparison to the mountain in Revelation 21 fits my point better than yours.

My only point was that the text does not say that the woman was in the wilderness.

The commentary by Ian Boxall confirmed my point, noted the fact that the text is ambiguous re the location of the woman in 17:3, and presented exegetical considerations re the ambiguity.