In a previous study I identified the great harlot, Mystery Babylon the Great, of Revelation 17 as the ancient city of Jerusalem, which contradicts just about all of present day eschatology. Some want to make the great harlot Rome, the Vatican, literal Babylon in modern Iraq or some such city that fits their idea of what the “end times” should look like. Nevertheless, the Bible never speaks about the end of time. Imagine that! The **Bible** never once mentions the end of time. In fact, the Scriptures claim the Kingdom of God, which was set up by Jesus during the days of the Roman Empire, would continue forever (Daniel 2:44). How can this be, if one’s eschatology demands the destruction of the universe?
Clearly, if one misunderstands who the great harlot is, his or her entire eschatology is wrong! If Jesus was to judge the great harlot (Revelation 19:2-3) at his return, but folks are looking for the wrong city to be destroyed, then obviously not only wouldn’t these people recognize the end of the age, when they saw it, but they would miss the actual return of Christ! Think about it. If Jerusalem is the great harlot, and Jerusalem was indeed destroyed in 70 AD, and, if the Lord came in the person of the Titus and his armies, then most of modern Christendom has missed the return of Jesus and erroneously look for a future parousia (return of Christ) that will never occur.
Let’s consider the word harlot, not only as it is used in the Apocalypse, but also as it is used in the rest of the Bible. The prophet, Ezekiel, uses the word to describe Samaria, the capital of the ten northern tribes, and Jerusalem, the capital of the two southern tribes. The twelve tribes are presented as the wives of the Lord, but they made alliances with surrounding nations for their protection. In other words they didn’t trust that the Lord was a husband who was strong enough to defend them. So, they heaped to themselves lovers or kings of other nations. This was considered unfaithfulness, so the two nations were dubbed harlots. It is a covenantal term. It has to do with a nation or nations that have or had a covenantal relationship with the Lord, but rebelled against that covenant and played the harlot, seeking to receive what the Lord promised them from other nations (lovers).
In other words both Samaria and Jerusalem broke their marriage vows with the Lord (the Old Covenant) by seeking help from other nations, and in the process, becoming more and more like the gentiles in behavior, ultimately worshiping their gods. The Lord divorced Samaria (Hosea 2:2-4; cp. Isaiah 50:1), and ultimately destroyed her for playing the harlot. That is she ceased to be a nation and was dispersed among the gentiles. Jerusalem not only played the harlot like her sister, but was even more flagrantly unfaithful to the Lord (Jeremiah 3:6-11). However, the Lord was unable to treat Jerusalem as he treated the ten northern tribes, because of his covenant with David. The Messiah or the great King that would save his people was to be born out of David’s lineage (2Samuel 7:12; 2Chronicles 21:7)
Now, we come to Revelation 17:4-5. The word, harlot, in the context of what I have written thus far is covenantal language for a woman who had broken her marriage vows. Which nation, or city existed or even exists today who had or has a marriage covenant with the Lord? Certainly Rome doesn’t fit this kind of language, and neither does the Vatican or any other city on earth. Only first century AD Jerusalem fits the context of a covenantal relationship with the Lord. Ancient Jerusalem prior to 70 AD was the only city of that day that had a marriage covenant with the Lord. No other city could boast of such a relationship, nor could any city since, including modern Jerusalem! Present day Jerusalem doesn’t have a marriage covenant with the Lord. They have been divorced.
First century AD Jerusalem is the only city from that time to the present that could fit the context of Revelation 17. Therefore, Mystery Babylon, the mother of harlots, i.e. the great harlot of the Apocalypse, can be no other city than Jerusalem, which was destroyed cir. 70 AD. John tells us that she was “drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus (Revelation 17:6), and Jesus told the leaders of Jerusalem:
“I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. (Matthew 23:34-36).
Jesus spoke of that generation, not a time 2000 years later. He prophesied that Jerusalem and its Temple would be utterly destroyed, which meant God had divorced his people, destroyed their nation and dispersed them among the gentiles, thus, bringing the Old Covenant to an end.
Smoodock's Blog 
8 responses to “More About the Great Harlot”
After so many years here is the answer right from the book. John Mark (the beloved disciple) had to go back to Jerusalem. Let’s see Why?
Paul, Barnabas and John Mark had just arrived at the port in Asia Minor. Paul and Barnabas had been there before and since they were short of time to accomplish the task at hand, knowing the city, the left the port quickly and went to the home of their acquaintance in that city. But John Mark was there for his first time and was impressed by the things that he saw in the port and stayed behind to enjoy the beauty of some of the docked ships and was left behind. Something similar to what happened when Joseph and Mary left Jesus (Isho) behind when He was in the temple talking to the saducees and others.
Then another ship coming from Jerusalem arrives at the port and some of the arriving passengers know John Mark, and approach him quickly because they want to convey him some urgent news. Herod had just killed his brother James in Jerusalem. So they told him that he needed to go back as soon as possible. There is a Jewish tradition that is an obligation of family members to “bury” their dead family members. So John Mark goes to the local office and finds out that the arriving ship has to charge some merchandise and will go back to Jerusalem in about 20 minutes. John Mark buys a ticket and goes back to Jerusalem to bury his brother James.
With the rush of going back, John Mark does not have time to look for his other companions to let them know that he is traveling back to the capital to complete a family duty to bury his brother James.
Since John Mark left Paul and Barnabas without notifying them, Paul was not happy with John Mark’s attitude, he was a young fellow and thus he was considered to be a little irrespondible, he was one of the boisterous “Boanerges Brothers.”
Later, John Mark explained the reasons of his actions and Paul knew he was good to do the work that Paul was doing and Paul forgave him.
Acts tell you of these things but you have to use your imagination to discover the “secret” right under our noses.
Greetings Patovilla, your comment was probably placed here by mistake. I’ll give you an opportunity to place it in my study of Acts where it would at least be in context. After a week or so, I’ll remove it permanently from my study on the Apocalypse. Lord bless you and have a good day.
Thanks. Since I’m new using the system, I placed the comment first chance the comment box opened up. But you did not make any comment on what I wrote. Some people say that silence grants agreement. ¿Are you doing that or will you have a comment later? Anyhow, may peace be with you. From PatoVilla72.
Greetings Pat, and Lord bless you. Silence can also mean I’m willing to allow you your opinion without my tearing it down. Freedom is important to the Lord, and I’m only recently coming to understand that this includes people who disagree with me. I love to debate, but debate doesn’t solve anything, nor does it express one’s love for one’s brethren. An enemy, on the other hand needs to be told they’re wrong. I won’t hesitate to do that. You’re not an enemy; you merely have an opinion about the text. You are welcome to what you see there. Folks are able to come here and read what you say, and what I say, compare both to the text, and they have the freedom to decide if either of the two of us line up well with the context of the Scripture under question.
Lord bless you, and have a good day.
Eddie: You left me totally confused.
Why? 3 things you mentioned.
1. “I love to debate.” then you mentioned that “debate doesn’t solve anything.”
My rational thinking if I believe that debate does not work, then I’ll stay away from it. So it seems you “love to contend” with others without getting to any agreement. Can I assume from your own words that you are a contentious person?
2. My rational thinking tells me that the act of debating does not have to do anything with not expressing love for the brethren. When we debate about ideas like the color of a car: Is gray vs is charcoal. It doesn’t show that I may not love the brethren.
3. “An enemy, on the other hand needs to be told they’re wrong.”
Why?
May be I’m wrong and that person that I consider “my enemy” is the one that is TOTALLY CORRECT.
Sorry Eddie, but I don’t follow your reasoning. Those were your words and left me TOTALLY CONFUSED.
May be I don’t have the level of your knowledge or wisdom.
May the Lord bless us all.
Peace be with you my friend in Christ.
So be it.