photo #8061471

BABYLON THE GREAT IS NOT JERUSALEM One of the first steps that a false teacher takes when trying to teach that Babylon the Great is not Babylon the Great is to change the word of God and call her "MYSTERY Babylon." The reasoning is that she can't be LITERAL Babylon, if she's MYSTERY Babylon, so "let's call her MYSTERY Babylon, and then we'll solve the MYSTERY for you by telling you who she really is." If you had a dollar for every Christian who has fallen for this stunt, you'd never have to work another day in your life.There is no "MYSTERY BABYLON" anywhere in the Bible. The wording on the whore's forehead in Revelation 17:5 is, "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT . . ." There's a COMMA after the word "MYSTERY," which totally changes the meaning from what thousands are teaching. The whore's proper name is "BABYLON THE GREAT." The words "MYSTERY" and the words "THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH" are descriptive words that modify "BABYLON THE GREAT," which is why Revelation 18:2 uses the words "Babylon the great" without the other words and which is why the word "Babylon" is used five other times in Revelation without the other words. But a false teacher can't teach that Babylon is someone other than Babylon without moving the comma and changing the name. And that's exactly what the false teacher does in the video that accompanied the image in this post. He began his study by projecting a Power Point image onto a screen that read, "MYSTERY BABYLON." He then proceeded to say how he would show us who "MYSTERY BABYLON" is. So, the trick is as follows:1) She's not Babylon, although the Bible says she is2) She's someone OTHER than Babylon3) I'm going to tell you who that someone isLOL . . . Could have we some snake oil with that and maybe an extended warranty? Welcome to Laodicea!!! With that, the false teacher delves into his "intriguing" study that reveals to you the identity of what he calls "MYSTERY BABYLON," and a growing number of such false teachers are claiming that this city is Jerusalem. If you're smart, you'll avoid all of them like the plague. Since the tribulation period is the “time of Jacob’s trouble” (Jer. 30:7), it is reasoned that Israel’s “trouble” is that she receives the harsh judgment of Revelation 17 and 18. This theory (which has been around for decades) suggests that the first mention of the term “that great city” in Revelation is defined as being Jerusalem in Revelation 11:8, so Jerusalem must be “that great city” of 17:18. Further, it is argued that Israel is defined as being a harlot in the Old Testament (Ezk. 16, 23; Hos. 2:5, 3:3, and 4:15), so she must be the harlot of Revelation. Israel is even identified with a “cup” in Ezekiel 23:31-34, so it is argued that she fits the description of Babylon the Great who has a “golden cup in her hand” in Revelation 17:4. If that weren’t enough, more “evidence” is found in the fact that Israel is guilty of the blood of God’s people (Mat. 23:35), just like Babylon the Great (Rev. 18:24). Now, let’s take a closer look at this “evidence” and see what a mess a man can get into when he uses the Bible to promote his own theory instead of searching wholeheartedly for the truth: (1) The idea that Revelation 11:8 defines Jerusalem as “that great city” for the rest of the book is incorrect. If one wants to appeal to the fundamental law of first mention, that’s fine, but since when did this law apply to just one Bible book? The first mention of “that great city” in the Bible is not found in Revelation and it isn’t a reference to any Jewish city where it is found. The term “that great city” is first applied to Nineveh in Jonah 1:2, and the term “great city” is first applied to Resen in Genesis 10:12, only two verses after Babel is first mentioned! Therefore, “that great city” in the Bible is NOT defined as Jerusalem. (2) To claim that Israel is THE harlot of Revelation just because she is called A harlot in the Old Testament is very shallow. Tyre is called a harlot in Isaiah 23:15-16, and Nineveh is called a harlot in Nahum 1:1 and Nahum 3:4. In fact, Nahum 3:4 would be a far better match with the harlot of Revelation than anything one could find about Israel. The verse says, “Because of the multitude of the whoredoms of the wellfavoured harlot, the mistress of witchcrafts, that selleth nations through her whoredoms, and families through her witchcrafts.” That’s a reference to Nineveh (vs. 7), not Jerusalem.It is only natural that God would refer to any sinful nation or city as a harlot because man’s first obligation is to “fear God and keep his commandments” (Ecc. 12:14), and when man fails to do so, he is guilty of spiritual harlotry. This is true of any sinful nation, not just Israel. (3) It is true that Jerusalem is identified with a wrathful “cup” in Ezekiel 23:31-34, which may remind one of the “golden cup” in the hand of Revelation’s harlot (Rev. 17:4), but the rest of the Bible is also true, including the reference to literal Babylon in Jeremiah 51:7: “Babylon hath been a golden cup in the LORD'S hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations are mad.” Notice in Jeremiah 51:7 the cup is a GOLDEN cup, as is the one in Revelation 17:4. Jerusalem has only a cup, as does Edom and Bozra (Jer. 49:12), but literal Babylon has the golden cup. (4) As for Israel being guilty of “the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth” (Rev. 18:24), that’s just ridiculous. Yes, Israel certainly killed her share of God’s people in the Old Testament, but Revelation 18:24 is speaking of “all that were slain upon the earth,” not just Old Testament saints. Twentieth century communism alone killed more of God’s people than Israel could have ever imagined. Then, again, it has been estimated that Rome (pagan and papal) is guilty of the blood of some 200,000,000 people. If you’re looking for killer-nations, you’d do well to start with the Gentiles, not the Jews, and let us not forget that the worst killing is yet future (Rev. 13:15; 20:4-6) while the “times of the gentiles” press toward their fulfillment (Luke 21:24; Rev. 11:2).There are also several factors that the proponents of this theory have completely overlooked: (1) Jerusalem’s spiritual name in Revelation is SODOM and EGYPT (Rev. 11:8), not Babylon. (2) If Revelation 17 and 18 contain God’s judgments on his own people, the Jews, why does he command his people to come out of the city and escape the judgment in 18:4? How can God judge his people if they heed the warning and escape? It must be that Babylon is NOT the true home of many of God’s people who dwell there, so they are warned to flee the city just as Lot was warned to flee Sodom. (3) Jerusalem has never reigned over the kings of the earth (Rev. 17:18), and definitely not in 96 A.D. when John penned Revelation! (4) Jerusalem isn’t a seaport, nor is she a commercial superpower (Rev. 18:15-19). (5) Jerusalem is in no way (literally or figuratively) sitting upon seven mountains (Rev. 17:9). (6) Jeremiah chapters 50 and 51 present Israel as a contrasting ENEMY of Babylon, so how could Israel actually BE Babylon? (7) Babylon will be destroyed as when God overthrew “Sodom and Gomorrah” (Jer. 50:40; Isa. 13:19; Rev. 18:21), yet the Bible is clear in stating that Jerusalem will endure forever (Jer. 17:25; Joel 3:20; II Chron. 33:4; Amos 9:13-15; Mat. 5:35, etc.). (8.) Holy apostles and prophets are told to REJOICE over Babylon’s destruction (Rev. 18:20), but God would NEVER issue such a command to his people regarding Jerusalem: “But thou shouldest not have looked on the day of thy brother in the day that he became a stranger; neither shouldest thou have rejoiced over the children of Judah in the day of their destruction; neither shouldest thou have spoken proudly in the day of distress.” (Obad. 1:12) God’s people are told to pray for the PEACE of Jerusalem (Psa. 122:6), not rejoice over her destruction! There may be some unanswered questions regarding the identity of Babylon the Great, but one thing is certain: SHE ISN’T JERUSALEM, and I intend to keep a safe distance between myself and anyone who believes otherwise--if you know what I mean (Gen. 12:3).