Preterism vs. Futurism: Zionist Harlotry

Greetings to all. It has been a while since I've gotten the chance to sit down and type up my next article. Lately, I have been confronting Futurism, namely Premillennialism. To do this, I thought addressing Mystery Babylon would be beneficial. After identifying the timing of the last days as present in the first century, one of our first thoughts should be how, if possible, can the fulfillment of the eschaton fit within such strict limitations (the last days ending in A.D. 70, of course). This naturally leads us to identify the imagery of prophecy within such a context.

For example, if the last days really did occur in the first century, does it make a lot of sense for the harlot, Mystery Babylon, to be representative of America, a nation which did not exist until many, many centuries later? Does it make sense for the Antichrist to be a yet future world dictator if the tribulation was finished by A.D. 70? Not at all. We must be careful to identify the Bible's imagery properly, something Futurists cannot do.

Throughout the analyses of America and the Roman Catholic Church, I have offered a few passages and chapters which shed light on the true identity of Mystery Babylon. I offered these hints so that you may figure out the proper interpretation for yourselves, or at the very least become suspicious of some possibilities. This meant keeping the previous articles vague (and poorly written, I might add, as a result) as not to give the answers away too soon. While mostly Preterists read this blog, there are some Futurists who do, and have questions, so the intent was to cover the popular interpretations to the point in which it became obvious that the scriptural evidence backing them is severely lacking. So, without further ado, I can now present the true identity of Mystery Babylon: Jerusalem.

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem...

For starters, is Jerusalem, or even Israel as a whole, ever spiritually identified as Sodom and Egypt? I argue this to be the case. Previously, I had asked for you to read Deuteronomy 32, Isaiah 1, Jeremiah 23, and Ezekiel 16. In case you missed what I was trying to reveal to you, allow me to explain.

In Deuteronomy 32, Moses is continuing to address the children of Israel. Make note, this is his audience. As we read the chapter, we find out a little bit about how God feels about Israel. God had delivered his children, protecting them through the wilderness (32:10), watching over them as an eagle watching over its brood (32:11). There was no strange god with them, either (32:12). However, the children of Israel began to take advantage of the Lord and forsook him (32:15).

So, the Lord became jealous, saying that he will turn his face from them, and show them what will happen to them in the last days (32:19-20). God declares that he will anger them with a nation void of understanding, consume them with hunger, and there shall be irremediable destruction (32:21-24). To come upon them would be a wrath like none other. Moreover, God had this to say about the deadness of Israel:

28It is a nation that has lost counsel, neither is there understanding in them. 29They had not sense to understand: let them reserve these things against the time time to come. 30How should one pursue a thousand, and two rout tens of thousands, if God had not sold them, and the Lord delivered them up? 31For their gods are not as our God, but our enemies are void of understanding. 32For the vine is of the vine of Sodom, and the vine-branch of Gomorrha: their grape is a grape of gall, their cluster is one of bitterness. (Deuteronomy 32:28-32)

Did you catch what Israel was likened to in verse 32? Sodom! Their vine is of the vine of Sodom! Was this said about America? The Roman Catholic Church? Is there any way we can know that this has spiritual relevance? After all, the whore is spiritually called Sodom. For this, I suggest we turn to John 15:

1I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. 2Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. 3Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. 4Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. 5I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. (John 15:1-5)

Here, Jesus is telling us he is the vine. He says that the branch cannot bear fruit of itself lest it abide in the vine, just as we cannot bear fruit lest we abide in him, and he in us. And we know that the reference to bearing fruit is of a spiritual nature. So, when we read that Israel is as the vine of Sodom, and the branch of Gomorrah, we can understand this to have spiritual implications! In other words, they were not bearing fruit, for they were not abiding in God.

Also for consideration is Isaiah 1. In verse 1, we have Judah and Jerusalem as our target audience (1:1). The Lord notes that they have rebelled against him. He regards them as a sinful nation, and lawless children (1:4). As his rant continues, he likens them to many things. Most notable to us are verses 9 and 10:

9And if the Lord of Sabaoth had not left us a seed, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been made like Gomorrha. 10Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodoma; attend to the law of God, thou people of Gomorrha. (Isaiah 1:9-10)

As found in Deuteronomy 32, the children of Israel are likened to Sodom. They were bearing no fruit, and were full of iniquity. Comparing their lawlessness as though they are Sodom seems to be a common correlation, and I believe it is the evidence we need to identify Mystery Babylon properly. The spiritual characteristics are irrefutably referring to Jerusalem, or Israel.

As in Deuteronomy 32 and Isaiah 1, we find similar representation in the book of Jeremiah:

14Also in the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen horrible things: as they committed adultery, and walked in lies, and strengthened the hands of man, that they should return each from his evil way: they are all become to me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrha. (Jeremiah 23:14)

Lastly, turn to Ezekiel 16, where the same likeness is repeated regarding God's children. In this case, Sodom is regarded as their sister:

46Your elder sister who dwells on thy left hand is Samaria, she and her daughters: and thy younger sister that dwells on the right hand, is Sodom and her daughters. (Ezekiel 16:46)

48As I live, saith the Lord, this Sodom and her daughters have not done as thou and thy daughters have done. 49Moreover this was the win of thy sister Sodom, pride: she and her daughters lived in pleasure, in fullness of bread and in abundance: this belonged to her daughters, and they helped not the hand of the poor and needy. 50And they boasted, and wrought iniquities before me: so I cut them off as I saw fit. (Ezekiel 16:48-50)

In this chapter, the children of Israel are regarded as even worse than Sodom, their sister! Even still, the two seem to be inseparable in their comparisons. To deny this is to disregard God's own feelings toward them. I find this to be a perfect witness as to the identification of Mystery Babylon as Jerusalem.

Previously, we drew the conclusion that being spiritually identified as Egypt is to imply bondage. We also connected the old law to bondage (Romans 7:7,14). God's covenant with his people was what we know as the old law, or the Mosaic law. While this is not relevant to either America or the Roman Catholic Church, this is entirely relevant to Jerusalem! Paul, when writing to the Galatians, addressed the matter of the law's bondage. Note what he has to say regarding the two covenants:

21Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise. (Galatians 4:21-23)

In other words, Abraham's wife, Sarah, could not conceive. She was barren. Sarah had given Agar, the bondwoman, to Abraham to bear a child. This was done solely for the sake of producing offspring, a fleshly desire. However, God had promised Abraham that Sarah would conceive a son, whose name would be Isaac. So, one child is born of the flesh (Ishmael), and the other is born by promise (Isaac).

24Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. (Galatians 4:24-25)

Paul cannot be any clearer. If a spiritual relationship to Egypt represents bondage, and the old covenant law is to those who abide in it bondage, and Paul tells us that Jerusalem is in bondage to the law, then what we have is irrefutable evidence for Jerusalem's spiritual identity as Egypt! Paul plainly tells us Jerusalem is representative of this bondage. It is truly amazing what can be learned when we allow the Bible to interpret itself and define its terms for us.

This is not all Revelation 11:8 had to say. As we examined earlier, Mystery Babylon is located where the Lord was crucified. The gospels tell us Christ was crucified at a place on the outskirts of Jerusalem (Matthew 27:33-35), which no doubt gives us irrefutable evidence of who Mystery Babylon is. Also, the dead bodies of the saints were to lie in the streets of this city. Revelation 17 and 18 give us some details of the harlot's charges:

6And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. (Revelation 17:6)

20Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her. (Revelation 18:20)

24And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth. (Revelation 18:24)

Now, while many claim the Crusades of the Roman Catholic Church are fulfillment of this, this is simply not true. Is it possible for scripture to answer this for us? I believe so. Consider the following verses:

29Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 34Wherefore, behold, 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: 35That 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. 36Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. 37O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathered her chickens under wings, and ye would not! 38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. (Matthew 23:29-38)

Mystery Babylon is guilty of the blood upon the earth, including the blood of the prophets. Christ, in his rebuke of the Pharisees, tells them they are guilty of such things! In verse 31, Christ says they are the children of them which killed the prophets, affirming this fact again in verse 37. I don't believe it gets much clearer than this. Jesus himself is placing such blame on the Jews.

22Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. 23Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets. (Luke 6:22-23)

33Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent to thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! (Luke 13:33-34)

Does the text read, “O America, America, which killest the prophets...,” or, “O Roman Catholic Church, Roman Catholic Church, which killest the prophets...”? It is Jerusalem who is to blame, just like Mystery Babylon! This tells us the identification of Mystery Babylon must certainly be Jerusalem! There is simply no way around this without being dishonest with the scriptures. The same is affirmed when we enter the book of Acts and the Jews are blamed for Christ's crucifixion:

23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: (Acts 2:23)

36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God that made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:36)

10Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. (Acts 4:10)

30The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. (Acts 5:30)

The list just goes on! For further proof of who is guilty of the blood of the righteous, you can read Acts 7:51-52, Romans 11:2-5, and 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16. In each case, it is the Jews who are guilty of shedding this blood, unto whom judgment shall come. There is simply no way of escaping this. But for some reason we are told to believe that the Jews are still God's chosen people, even though Jesus' generation (Matthew 23:36) would be judged and destroyed for the shedding of righteous blood. This tells us, beyond any doubt, that Mystery Babylon's identity falls within the first century. Any claim to the contrary would have to refute every single passage quoted thus far, which I argue to be impossible.

America and the Roman Catholic Church failed to be valid candidates for this harlot position once it became impossible to identify them as spiritual Sodom and Egypt. And while both have caused their fair share of bloodshed, scripture only blames Jerusalem for the shedding of the righteous blood of the prophets, saints, and Jesus. Therefore, it is without a doubt that Jerusalem is Mystery Babylon.

Another characteristic of Mystery Babylon is that she sits on the scarlet beast (Revelation 17:3). Geographically speaking, Jerusalem no doubt sits on the beast, which was the Roman empire. Recall that the Jews claimed they had no king except Caesar:

15But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. (John 19:15)

The Roman empire was enormous. Jerusalem, the harlot, was seated on top of the beast geographically-speaking.

The harlot is also dressed in scarlet and purple, gold, and precious stones (Revelation 17:4). As noted in the article on America's relationship to Mystery Babylon, this imagery is representative of the priestly attire for the temple priest. Aaron, Moses' brother, was to minister as priest of the temple (Exodus 28:3). He was to wear exactly what the harlot is depicted as wearing (Exodus 28:2-8,15-20). The harlot's attire is tied directly to Israel, namely Jerusalem and the temple. For those familiar with this imagery in the first century, identifying the harlot would have been rather easy, I imagine. For modern readers, we aren't immediately connected with such a thing, which is why I believe so many fail to understand the harlot's apparel as representing Jerusalem. Such was the case with me, as well.

The rest of Mystery Babylon's characteristics are rather self-explanatory. Jerusalem was blamed by Christ himself for the shedding of righteous blood. They were guilty of killing their Savior, and husband. They were to fill up the measure of their sins, and would be drunk with the blood of the saints. They would drink this blood with the golden cup held in their hands (Revelation 17:4). As for the title on the harlot's forehead (Revelation 17:5), the old covenant Jews were not faithful to the covenant between them and God. They went a-whoring with other nations, nations which knew not God. When they murdered Jesus, they became a widowed adultress. God's old covenant people were truly harlots.

“All roads lead to Rome,” we are often told, though I believe when it comes to identifying Mystery Babylon all roads lead to Jerusalem. This is a difficult interpretation for many people given the level of influence of Zionism. Christians are taught to worship every move Israel makes, and that God is coming back to save them. Thus, it makes little sense for them to believe they could be the harlot who is guilty of shedding righteous blood.

I mean, it's not like Jesus said so, or anything.

Blessings,

Jason Watt

Preterism vs. Futurism: Roman Catholic Harlotry

This is the third part in an undetermined amount of articles in the Preterism vs. Futurism series. The first article analyzed the “last days.” Many believe the “last days” are meant for them, and not those to whom the scriptures were written. A simple analysis of Hebrews 1:1-2 reveals that Jesus Christ had come during the last days. The outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost was fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32, which Peter himself declared to be a last days prophecy (Acts 2:17). Sadly, Dispensationalists still await the fulfillment of the outpouring of the Spirit. It blows my mind that they can deny the testimony of the scriptures like that.

One of the most important prophetic characters is the harlot in the book of Revelation. In the previous article, I briefly went over the characteristics of this harlot, Mystery Babylon, and how they may or may not relate to America. Really, such an analysis is difficult, for there exists little that America and Mystery Babylon have in common. Therefore, I decided to remain vague in my approach, because too deep an analysis would have given away the answer for those who don't already know who Mystery Babylon is! This really is that simple a matter.

For the Futurists who believe the Roman Catholic Church is Mystery Babylon, there seems to be a lot more support in scripture. They're still dead wrong, of course, but this will allow me to keep from being slightly less vague and dismissive, which I am happy about. Figuring out whether America is the harlot really was quite dull...

Anyway, without further ado, I present:

Roman Catholic Church: It's Cool to be a Whore!

Perhaps one of the greatest misconceptions is also the most reasonable from a Futurist perspective. Having been taught the Dispensational view my whole life, I am understanding of those who come to certain conclusions, because I do know that the arguments can be convincing to those who do not devote the necessary time to studying the matters. Identifying Mystery Babylon as the Roman Catholic Church is one of those conclusions. As we will briefly analyze, the Roman Catholic Church as the harlot of Revelation may seem to make sense for a while, but after applying consistent hermeneutics the Roman Catholic Church will not appear to be so obvious an answer.

In the first article, we identified the last days as a period of time that occurred in the first century. Separating the last days from this time frame is to be dishonest with what the inspired writers told us (again, note the Dispensational rejection of Peter's words on the day of Pentecost). Therefore, we could have simply brushed off analyzing the possibility of America as Mystery Babylon, but I believe by analyzing this interpretation we were able to see the importance of keeping everything in the proper context. After all, it takes much speculation and twisting of scripture to claim Mystery Babylon is America, simply because it has escaped this first century context. The Roman Catholic Church, however, doesn't remain inseparable from the first century.

Catholics maintain that the Catholic Church was founded in the first century through Jesus Christ, with the succession of Popes beginning with the apostle Peter. This is merely tradition. Most importantly, we can note the Catholic Church's place of origin as Rome, hence Roman Catholic Church. The Roman empire was still standing as of the fourth century when Christianity was legalized throughout the empire. And, what was the fourth empire in Daniel 2 and 7? The Roman empire! Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church is not entirely separate from the first century context of the eschaton (well...if one wants to force the context to stretch a few hundred years). Those who understand this make the effort to give the Roman Catholic Church eschatological relevance. This can be quite convincing to those who neglect some of the most important details. All we can do is put the Catholic harlot to the test:

8And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. (Revelation 11:8)

If the Roman Catholic Church is to be identified as Mystery Babylon, it must fit the spiritual identification of Sodom and Egypt. Furthermore, it must also be the place where the Lord was crucified. So, does Rome fit the bill? Not at all. Not even slightly. As we identified previously, the implication of being a spiritual Egypt was that of bondage, which is the old covenant law. Were the Romans, or Catholics, ever bound to this law? I believe the book of Romans can answer that for us:

21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: (Romans 3:21-24)

In short, the Roman Gentiles were not bound to the old covenant law in the first century, and certainly are not now. Therefore, there are no such ties to the spiritual identification of Egypt. Moreover, I do not find any references to the Roman Catholic Church as a spiritual Sodom. I encourage another reading of Deuteronomy 32, Isaiah 1, Jeremiah 23, and Ezekiel 16. By putting the Roman Catholic Church under the very same test we put put America under, we can accurately and fairly assess any likelihood of the Roman Catholic Church as Mystery Babylon. After reading those four chapters, I believe anyone who allows scripture to interpret itself will quickly see there is no such reference to the Roman Catholic Church in any of the chapters. Also, it does one well to remember how the imagery found in Revelation is being drawn from the Old Testament. So, since the Old Testament is in no way defining the Roman Catholic Church as Sodom, we can safely assume the first century readers of John's vision wouldn't have made such a connection, either.

As with America, we must question any relationship the Roman Catholic Church may have with Egypt. Previously, we were able to use Paul's letter to the Romans to identify the spiritual characteristic of Egypt as bondage, which would mean the old law (Romans 7:7,14). If one can give proof of the Roman Catholic Church's obedience to the old law, then perhaps it isn't entirely unreasonable to suggest the relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and Mystery Babylon. So, has the Roman Catholic Church ever been bound to the old law, a law which had been done away with in the first century? The Roman Catholic Church has many disagreeable doctrines, but I do not believe they have ever regarded the old law as binding. They, like the other denominations in Christianity, recognize the passing of the old law and the establishment of Christ's new covenant. Therefore, it is accurate to claim there lies no such connection to Egypt and the bondage of the old law.

This rules out many of the characteristics found in Revelation 11:8. Advocates of this view tend to argue that because the Romans carried out the crucifixion sentence, they are the ones guilty of slaying Christ. However, this is a geographical identification. If Christ had been crucified in Rome, then perhaps a valid argument could be made. Unfortunately for the advocates of this view, Christ was not crucified in Rome, but instead was crucified outside of Jerusalem (Matthew 27:33-35). So, geographically speaking, Rome cannot be an accurate interpretation. I must warn of the subtlety of such an argument; those identifying Rome as the place of crucifixion simply because the Romans carried out the sentence turn this from a geographical identification into an ethnic identification. As Don Preston states, “Commentators seek to change, 'where the Lord was slain,' to, 'by whom' the Lord was crucified. Yet, the Bible settles even the 'by whom' question, and it is not Rome” (Preston, Don K., Who Is This Babylon?, page 55).

Returning to Revelation 17, we must yet again test the Roman Catholic Church in the same way we tested America so that we may maintain a fair assessment. Again, here are the characteristics we picked out from Revelation 17. However, to spice things up a bit, I'd like to add one more characteristic that I purposefully left out of our America analysis given its lack of relevance at the time: 1) She sits upon a scarlet beast (17:3); 2) She wears purple and scarlet, and gold, and precious stones (17:4); 3) Holds a golden cup of her sins (17:4); 4) On her forehead is a title (17:5); 5) The beast has seven heads, which represent seven kings and seven mountains (17:9).

Our first characteristic is that the harlot sits upon the scarlet beast. Does the Roman Catholic Church sit upon the Roman empire? Yes, actually. If a Futurist view is accurate, then the Vatican, located in Rome, can be made to fit this characteristic. This is very important to the Futurists who advocate this view. I would like to point out something the Futurists either miss or neglect, though. Revelation 17:16 tells us that the ten horns on the seven heads of the beast will hate the whore and leave her desolate. For your consideration, I'd like to ask if it makes much sense for Rome to hate itself. Allow me to clarify. Vatican City is a city-state ruled by the Pope, who leads the Catholic Church. Vatican City can be found in Rome. If Futurist eschatology is correct, the beast, which we know to be the Roman empire, would wage war against itself and leave itself desolate. Does this sound accurate? I wouldn't say so. And considering Vatican City had not been founded in the first century, there would have been no Vatican City for the Roman empire to destroy.

Details, details...

Nevertheless, keeping in mind the possibility of such a thing, we come to our next characteristic: purple, scarlet, gold, and precious stones. Without a doubt, we can find the Roman Catholic liturgy wearing a number of colors, ranging from white and red, to purple and gold. This is a major means of support for the Roman Catholic Church-Mystery Babylon connection. I do not find it without merit when looking through the Futurist lens. Furthermore, the Pope is often ridiculed for wearing many rings, and precious stones. On top of that, the Catholic Church is always known for its elegance (and pedophilia, but hey, that's another story). However, this must have first century relevance. We cannot forget this! The last days are confined to the Bible's chronology, which places the last days during the lifetimes of the apostles (Acts 2:16-21; Hebrews 1:2). If Roman Catholic liturgy had not been established then no such connection can be made. Therefore, while the Roman Catholic Church can be found sitting atop the old Roman empire (Rome, itself, to be exact) via Vatican City, the Roman Catholic Church had not been established until much later, ruling out both the relevance of their wardrobe and the geographical placement of Vatican City.

It should be obvious that I clearly understand the relevance that Futurists give the Roman Catholic Church. Like I said, it makes sense if the last days are still in our future. I hope you can see why the first article in this series identified the proper timing of those days. It makes the rest of our analysis a breeze!

Our third characteristic is that the harlot holds a golden cup of her sins. Remember, the harlot was guilty of slaying righteous blood, the blood of the saints. During the Crusades, which lasted for a couple hundred years, the Roman Catholic Church persecuted pagans, Christians, and Muslims alike. For roughly two centuries, righteous and unrighteous blood had been shed. Using the Crusades as evidence, Futurists apply this to Revelation 11:7-8 and 17:1,4, the very sins by which the whore is to be judged. Reasonable? If you ignore the points made thus far, sure. However, the whore was ready to be judged in the first century for sins already committed, not sins to be committed over a thousand years later. If we observe the parables found in Matthew 21:33-43 and 22:1-10, and try to apply them to the Roman Catholic Church, we should be able to see rather quickly that the blood of the righteous does not fill the cup of the Roman Catholic Church.

The fourth characteristic is the title on the forehead of Mystery Babylon, labeling her a whore. Again, read Ezekiel 16. John is drawing his imagery from the Old Testament. First century Jews would have been familiar with the scriptures from which John is giving us these details, and in no place do we find Rome, the Roman Empire, nor the Roman Catholic Church labeled a whore. As Ezekiel 16:15 informs us, this whore had fornicated with every passerby. This whore was present in the first century, and already guilty of such fornication. Therefore, John is not referring to a yet future guilt, but instead a guilt already attained. Mystery Babylon is a harlot due to her unfaithfulness. The harlot had a covenant with God. She was to be wed to the Son, the Lamb, but instead murdered him (Revelation 11:8). Instead of staying faithful to him throughout her covenant, she went a-whoring. Ezekiel 16 establishes this fact very clearly.

Lastly, we come to a characteristic not included in our analysis of America as Mystery Babylon. In Revelation 17:9, we read that the seven heads of the scarlet beast are seven kings and seven mountains, thus, having two identifications. When arguing either Rome or the Roman Catholic Church as Mystery Babylon, it is often noted that Rome has been known since antiquity as the city on seven hills. Duly noted. The Futurists miss the fact that the seven mountains, or hills, depending on the translation, are in relation to the whore, not the beast. Therefore, if one is to argue that the Roman Catholic Church is the whore, then they must argue the distinction between the seven mountains surrounding the whore, and the beast! And, if the beast is the Roman empire, then no such argument can be made, for the Roman Catholic Church and its seat upon the Roman empire are inseparable. This means it is most likely that the whore has its relation to the beast in some way, yet remains separate.

Considering the evidence so far, it should be rather obvious that America is far too unlikely a candidate. And because the Roman Catholic Church was centuries from establishment in the first century, any correlations made between Mystery Babylon and the Roman Catholic Church are annulled. The identification of the harlot must fall within the “last days,” which we know to have occurred in the first century. If this identification of the last days can be refuted and shown to be a time much later, perhaps a reasonable argument can be made to support the Roman Catholic Church as the candidate. However, please bear in mind that the Roman Catholic Church would have to fit all of the characteristics we observed. The Roman Catholic Church failed to meet the spiritual identification of Sodom and Egypt, and even failed proper chronological relevance. So, while there are enough correlations to cause suspicion, I feel that we are not remaining honest, nor consistent, by maintaining the identity of Mystery Babylon as the Roman Catholic Church.

In the next article, I will conclude this brief analysis of Mystery Babylon, and finally we will be able to exegetically give the proper interpretation. Writing these last two articles has been hard, for there is no exegesis involved in such interpretations. There are coincidences, sure, but no exegetical support. As always, disagreements are always welcome! If you have an objection to my position, feel free to share! I will always discuss the topics in greater detail.

Thanks for reading,

Jason Watt

Preterism vs. Futurism: Is America Mystery Babylon?

In my last article, I briefly touched on the topic of the last days. Identifying this period of time is obviously vital to the interpretation of prophecy. And while I could have added much more to such a topic, I believe the points raised in that article established my view effectively (this is also a blog, not a book, so why write more than people will read?). I always welcome questions in case further elaboration is needed, so feel free to ask me anything.

Identifying the timing of the last days, while vital, is not the only vital aspect of the interpretation of prophecy. The details themselves must be interpreted in light of the timing of these days. For instance, I, a Full Preterist, cannot claim that the last days were occurring during the reign of the fourth beast, the Roman empire, and still maintain a yet future parousia. This kind of nonsense is reserved for the cowardly Partial Preterists. It would also be inconsistent of me to claim that the last days had begun in the first century, yet they have lasted for two thousand years, and that the tribulation will occur in my lifetime. It doesn't work like that.

The same goes for identifying a prophetic character, such as Mystery Babylon. Who is this harlot, this great city guilty of the shedding of righteous blood? It has come to my attention that few people really pay attention to the harlot character of the book of Revelation. In fact, her importance has gone so unnoticed that she has become identified as a number of things and places, none of which actually have much, if any, Biblical support. The fact that this harlot has taken a back seat in one's understanding of Revelation is part of the reason why Futurist eschatologies exist, in my opinion. This is why I feel it is important to discuss this matter, for without proper identification of the harlot, eschatology can be difficult to understand.

To quickly note, you may find that I am a tad evasive, or vague, at times. The reason for this is that I want you to make the effort to study the text. It will be the fourth article in this series which provides the proper identification of the harlot, so I must remain vague during the course of our observations as not to give away answers too quickly. This will allow for you to read the passages I give you for reference, and will answer your questions without relying on me to give the answers too soon.

The Great Harlot...America?

One such interpretation is that the harlot is nothing more than the conglomerate of pagan religions. This is by far the most outrageous of interpretations. Some believers even identify the harlot as the United States of America, turning that which is was not even in existence in the first century into one of the most vital eschatological characters. While this view is fairly popular, identifying the harlot as the Roman Catholic Church is far more popular (as will be discussed in the next article), but also mistaken. Since the interpretation of the harlot, Mystery Babylon, as a conglomerate of pagan religions is not worth one's time, in my opinion, I believe focusing on the refutation of the relevance of the United States is a good start.

The first thing any Bible student should do when considering America's role in Bible prophecy is to find out if America is even mentioned. Now, it is clear to most, if not all, that America is never mentioned by name. To a lot of Futurists, however, this does not invoke them to reconsider their view. One such man, who will go unnamed, once discussed this matter with me. He understood the harlot to have a covenant relationship with God, claiming she will break that covenant in the last days and find destruction because of it. His understanding was that America was founded as a Christian nation (which is debatable), thus, America was in a covenant relationship with God. However, through America's constant sinning we have broken that covenant. Of course, upon showing him the many holes in his view, he retaliated harshly. Yet, if he had taken the time to actually read the verses I posted, he may have inched closer to understanding my position, because he was certainly noticing characteristics of the harlot that I believe many overlook.

All of scripture points to a first century fulfillment of eschatology. With this in mind, can anyone then verify America's place in prophecy, let alone any point in the Bible? Of course not. America did not exist for many, many centuries, and to place America in the context of first century scripture is the result of bias and eisegesis. This means the harlot must be a first century character, which excludes America entirely.

Naturally, this is not good enough for the Premillennialists. Considering Premillennialists cannot identify the last days properly, it takes a little more than revealing their chronological misconceptions to show them their errors. By comparing the characteristics of Mystery Babylon with America, however, we can more accurately target, and refute, the errors in maintaining America as Mystery Babylon. I'll begin with a single verse:

8And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. (Revelation 11:8)

Mystery Babylon is identified spiritually as Sodom and Egypt. What relevance could Sodom and Egypt possibly have to America? Sodom was full of sin, as is any nation or city. On this basis alone, can a reasonable argument be made when identifying America as the harlot? Not entirely. How about a specific means of sin? We know Sodom was guilty of homosexuality, yet we run into the same predicament of maintaining too broad a scope. It can be accurately connected that America is full of homosexuals, which may lead one to make the connection to Mystery Babylon. I've even found myself likening my work place to Sodom at one time, so I understand the connection (though my connection was made humorously).

However, America must be identified as Sodom through the scriptures, not through one's opinion. Thus, given the fact that America is never referenced in the entire Bible, neither by name or implication, we can rest assured that no such comparison to Sodom can be made of America. Remember to let scripture interpret scripture. The Bible defines its own terms. Therefore, for your study, read Deuteronomy 32, Isaiah 10, Jeremiah 23, and Ezekiel 16. Is America ever the nation likened to Sodom? If so, America may be a candidate. What does the text say?

How about Egypt? What could Egypt possibly have to do with America that would make so strong an argument as to give America any eschatological relevance? What do we know about Egypt from the Old Testament that might have spiritual relevance to Mystery Babylon? Bondage, perhaps? It was in Egypt that the children of Israel found themselves in captivity. Now, from a spiritual perspective, what offered only bondage to believers? It was the old law, of course:

7But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the old of the letter. (Romans 7:7)

14For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. (Romans 7:14)

Paul likens the old law to being held in death, and sold under sin. This is exactly how Egypt relates to Mystery Babylon. Now, was America ever held under the law? If so, America may very well be a candidate for Mystery Babylon (assuming one can exegetically prove that the last days are yet future, or present today). However, as we all know, the new covenant has been in effect for a very, very long time, and the old law has been abrogated! On top of that, the Mosaic law was given to the Israelites only. Therefore, America has never been, nor will ever be, subject to that old law. As such, America cannot possibly be Mystery Babylon.

Another aspect of Mystery Babylon, as taken from Revelation 11:8, is that it is the place where the Lord was crucified. My challenge to you is to search for any minute reference to America as the place of the Lord's crucifixion. You will find that no such reference is ever made, neither literally nor metaphorically, which means, according to the three points addressed so far, America has no such support when identified as Mystery Babylon. Paul has a little something to say in regards to this:

14For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: 15Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: 16Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16)

This very passage alone identifies exactly who the harlot is, with a number of characteristics identified on top of that. What we can deduce is that America is not guilty of slaying the Lord Jesus Christ, which means identifying America as Mystery Babylon can only be done through eisegesis and bias. Just who does Paul blame for the Lord's death? It's really as simple as that.

Moving further into Revelation reveals more of these characteristics. At this point, America is not a likely candidate. However, it would suit us well to truly make sure by testing America's relevance a little more. For this, Revelation 17 is a good place to go:

1And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: 2With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. 3So 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. 4And 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: 5And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. (Revelation 17:1-5)

In just these five verses we are given a number of characteristics of this woman in the vision. I believe these are the most important to observe at this time: 1) She sits upon a scarlet beast (17:3); 2) She wears purple, scarlet, gold, and precious stones (17:4); 3) Holds a golden cup full of her sins (17:4); 4) On her forehead is a title (17:5).

Does America sit upon the scarlet beast, Rome? No. Premillennialists rebuttal with the “revived Roman empire” theory, but this is nonsense. In a vain effort to give prophecy some future relevance, they must revive the Roman empire. Why the Roman empire? Because in Daniel 7 we read that it is during the reign of the Roman empire that these things would be fulfilled! Thus, they separate Daniel 9:27 from 9:26 with a gap of nearly two thousand years (and counting), and claim that the Roman empire will be revived in the future. It is amazing how much the scriptures don't talk about this make-believe garbage.

If one is going to argue America as clothed with purple, scarlet, gold, and precious stones, they must be able to apply the symbolism to America without distorting the meaning. These colors are used for a reason. Letting the Bible interpret itself, we can find the meaning of these colors:

2And thou shalt make holy apparel for Aaron thy brother, for honour and glory. 3And speak thou to all those who are wise in understanding, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom and perception; and they shall make the holy apparel of Aaron for the sanctuary, in which apparel he shall minister to me as priest. 4And these are the garments which they shall make: the breast-plate, and the shoulder-piece, and the full-length robe, and the tunic with a fringe, and the tire, and the girdle; and they shall make holy garments for Aaron and his sons to minister to me as priests. 5And they shall take the gold, and the blue, and the purple, and the scarlet, and the fine linen. 6And they shall make the shoulder-piece of fine linen spun, the woven work of the embroiderer. 7It shall have to shoulder-pieces joined together, fastened on the two sides. 8And the woven work of the shoulder-pieces which is upon it shall be of one piece according to the work, of pure gold and blue and purple, and spun scarlet and fine twined linen. (Exodus 28:2-8)

These colors are quite important, for they do not represent merely royalty as some would suggest, but they are the colors which make up holy garments for a priesthood in service of God. Also consider what is written a few verses later:

15And thou shalt make the oracle of judgment, the work of the embroiderer: in keeping with the ephod, thou shalt make it of gold, and blue and purple, and spun scarlet, and fine linen spun. 16Thou shalt make it square: it shall be double; of a span the length of it, and of a pan the breadth. 17And thou shalt interweave with it a texture of four rows of stone; there shall be a row of stones, a sardius, a topaz, an emerald, the first row. 18And the second row, a carbuncle, a sapphire, and a jasper. 19And the third row, a ligure, an agate, an amethyst: 20and the fourth row, a chrysolite, and a beryl, and an onyx stone, set round with gold, bound together with gold: let them be according to their row. (Exodus 28:15-20)

How, in any way, can this represent America when it is entirely representative of Israel's priesthood? We can't entertain this in any way possible lest we be guilty of forcing scripture to fit a view that simply does not maintain consistency. If Futurists let scripture interpret scripture, no such confusion would be made. Simply put, America cannot possibly be Mystery Babylon.

The harlot is also depicted as holding a golden cup full of her sins. This kind of imagery can be found as relative to Babylon. Similar to Mystery Babylon, literal Babylon was about to come under judgment:

1Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I stir up against Babylon, and against the Chaldeans dwelling therein, a deadly burning wind. 2And I will send forth against Babylon spoilers, and they shall spoil her, and shall ravage her land. Woe to Babylon round about her in the day of her affliction. 3Let the archer bend his bow, and him that has armour put it on: and spare ye not her young men, but destroy ye all her host. 4And slain men shall fall in the land of the Chaldeans, and men pierced through shall fall without it. 5For Israel and Juda have not been forsaken of their God, of the Lord Almighty; whereas their land was filled with iniquity against the holy things of Israel. 6Flee ye out of the midst of Babylon, and deliver every one his soul: and be not overthrown in her iniquity; for it is time of her retribution from the Lord; he is rendering to her a recompence. 7Babylon has been a golden cup in the Lord's hand, causing all the earth to be drunken: the nations have drunk of her wine; therefore they were shaken. (Jeremiah 28:1-7; Jeremiah 51 in KJV)

There is some fairly familiar imagery in this passage. In verse 7, we read of Babylon as a golden cup, causing the earth to be drunken of her wine. Similarly, Mystery Babylon is exactly the same, having a golden cup filled with sin, also guilty of leaving the nations drunk. It is my understanding that the harlot's imagery is derived from Babylon in this very sense. Mystery Babylon has filled up her golden cup with many sins, guilty of shedding righteous blood for many, many centuries (Revelation 11:7-8).

In what way can this be applied to America? Given all of the points made so far, especially the necessity of first century relevance, how can America be identified as the harlot, Mystery Babylon? It is impossible. Premillennialists must lie to make it so.

Lastly, consider the title on the whore's forehead (Revelation 17:5). I often refer people to Ezekiel 16 to find out who the Bible defines as a whore, and why they are a whore in the first place. Ezekiel 16:2 tells us the target audience. The nation being regarded in Ezekiel 16 was once beautiful, and treated as such, given many precious stones and jewelry (consider the previous identifier). However, she trusted in her beauty instead of God, and went a-whoring (Ezekiel 16:15f). If John is going to refer to Mystery Babylon as a whore, then we must be able to interpret this imagery through that which John is pulling the imagery from in the first place. Does Ezekiel 16 read of America, or another nation? Many nations can be found to fit certain aspects of Mystery Babylon's identity, including America, but the Bible does not regard America as a whore.

America, though full of sins, is certainly not going to fall into the first century placement of the last days. This means America cannot be identified as Mystery Babylon, disproving some Futurists' understanding. As they desperately search for a nation, city, or religious system to fit into the Bible, we can take comfort in knowing that Mystery Babylon is no longer a mystery, which, if you haven't already figured it out, will be revealed in a later article.

Until then, stay blessed by the best.

Jason Watt

Preterism vs. Futurism: The Last Days

It has been a while since I've had the chance to get an article posted. I had some other ideas floating around for a while, but I kept finding reasons to postpone writing on those topics. The first topic that I decided to begin was soteriology, the study of salvation. As I began to layout the subject matter of each article, I quickly learned that a topic like this would be much larger than I had anticipated. Why? Because each detail trailed off into its own sub-topic. Before long, I quite honestly had enough information to write an entire book. If I had condensed the material it would get sloppy, and probably contain holes, and I did not want that.

The second topic was on an eschatological view called “Middleism.” I read through a book written by Stephen Whitsett, in which he explained his position quite thoroughly. By the time I got through it, I realized my series on Matthew 24 dismantled his entire position. To conduct a series on Middleism would result in me repeating myself, and what's the point of writing if such is the result?

Truth be told, after all of this contemplation, I suddenly noticed I'd developed writer's block! That, or very little inspiration to write anything. Regardless, I have been stumped. Then it hit me that I haven't really spent time addressing Futurism directly. All nine of my articles so far have been either explaining Full Preterist positions, or arguing against the Full Preterist views I disagree with. Therefore, I have decided to do something I do quite well, and that's attack Premillennialism head on.

As I do not wish to leave you with a novel, my points will be brief, but effective. If you wish to raise objections, or have further questions, feel free to present them. I am always willing to expand upon my points.

Peter Is a Liar

To properly identify the timing of the last days, one must use scripture to interpret scripture. Futurists are guilty of using the newspaper to interpret scripture, so to speak, when scripture does a fine job of interpreting itself. Identifying these last days is extremely important. And while I personally believe a single one-two combo of Acts 2 and Joel 2 knocks out any confusion of when the last days occurred, I feel it all too important to be thorough as not to leave many questions lingering.

To begin, I believe Daniel 7 is a perfect place to start. In this chapter, Daniel writes of four beasts, which represent four kingdoms. History, as well as the latter chapters of Daniel, all confirm the successive dominion of these kingdoms. While Bible students may disagree on this chapter's exact manner of fulfillment, I believe the majority view in the Preterist camp is most likely correct. Let's observe the following, then make the case:

2I Daniel beheld, and, lo, the four winds of heaven blew violently upon the great sea. 3And there came up four great beasts out of the sea, differing from one another. 4The first was a lioness, and her wings as an eagle's: I beheld until her wings were plucked, and she was lifted off from the earth, and she stood on human feet, and a man's heart was given to her. 5And, behold, a second beast like a bear, and it supported itself on one side, and there were three ribs in its mouth, between its teeth: and thus they said to it, Arise, devour much flesh. 6After this one I looked, and behold another wild beast as a leopard, and it had four wings of a bird upon it: and the wild beast had four heads, and power was given to it. 7After this one I looked, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and exceedingly strong, and its teeth were of iron; devouring and crushing to atoms, and it trampled the remainder with its feet: and it was altogether different from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. 8I noticed his horns, and, behold, another little horn came up in the midst of them, and before it three of the former horns were rooted out: and, behold, there were eyes as the eyes of a man in this horn, and a mouth speaking great things. (Daniel 7:2-8)

While it's not important at this time to analyze every detail, we will use these beasts to identify the kingdoms they represent, starting with the lioness. This beast is the head of Nebuchadnezzar's dream (Daniel 2:32,37-39). Therefore, Babylon is this lioness with eagle's wings. History tells us the kingdom of Medo-Persia conquered the Babylonian empire, represented by the hands, arms, and chest of the figure in Nebuchadnezzar's dream (Daniel 2:32,39). Isaiah also prophecies against Babylon, declaring that God would stir up the Medes against them (Isaiah 13). Medo-Persia is also represented by the bear with three ribs in its mouth. The Persians maintained dominance over the Medes, which I find may represent why the bear is supported on one of its sides. I suspect the ribs in the bear's mouth are symbolic of the nations this kingdom would conquer.

The third beast is the Grecian empire. This beast is a leopard with four wings and four heads, represented by the belly and thighs of brass in Nebuchadnezzar's dream (Daniel 2:32,39). Alexander the Great is known as one of the best conquerors in history, and his empire swept across the inhabited world. When Alexander died, his empire was divided and given to his four generals, which I find to be symbolized by the leopard's four heads.

Following this leopard is the indescribable fourth beast. This would be the Roman empire, and it maintained all the ferocity of the Grecian empire, plus more. This beast is represented as the legs of iron, and feet of iron and earthenware in Nebuchadnezzar's dream (Daniel 2:33,40-43). The Roman empire was in power over the inhabited world during the time of Christ.

There is actually disagreement as to whom this fourth beast represents. Another Preterist view maintains that this is actually the Grecian empire. However, I do not believe this can be Biblically supported for the following reason:

13I beheld in the night vision, and, lo, one coming with the clouds of heaven as the Son of man, and he came on to the Ancient of days, and was brought near to him. 14And to him was given the dominion, and the honour, and the kingdom; and all nations, tribes, and languages, shall serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom shall not be destroyed. (Daniel 7:13-14)

44And in the days of those kings the God of heaven shall set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed: and his kingdom shall not be left to another people, but it shall beat to pieces and grind to powder all other kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. (Daniel 2:44)

Clearly, this takes place during the reign of the fourth beast. In regards to any future fulfillment, notice verse 44 says, “And in the days of those kings...” The text does not say, “And in the days of the kings over two thousand years from now...” Daniel 7:13-14 makes it quite clear that Christ's kingdom would come in days now long passed. It seems rather undeniable when Daniel 2 and 7 are compared that Christ's kingdom would come during the fourth beast's reign. This was fulfilled through Christ during his first advent.

Knowing that the last days would occur during the reign of the fourth beast, the Roman empire, Peter's words on the day of Pentecost make a lot of sense. On that day, the Holy Spirit was poured out and they started speaking in tongues (Acts 2:1-3). People were suspicious of drunkenness (Acts 2:13), but Peter was quick to rebuke (Acts 2:14-15), and proceeded to explain what was really occurring:

16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith god, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see vision, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: 19And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: 20The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come: 21And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Acts 2:16-21)

So, if “this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel...,” and Joel prophesied of the last days, then do we not have irrefutable evidence that Peter was experiencing those very same last days? In fact, Joel 2 is where we find this prophecy:

28And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. 29And on my servants and on my handmaids in those days will I pour out of my Spirit. 20And I will shew wonders in heaven, and upon the earth, blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke. 31The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and glorious day of the Lord come. 32And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved: for in mount Sion and in Jerusalem shall the saved one be as the Lord has said, and they that have glad tidings preached to them, whom the Lord has called. (Joel 2:28-32)

Peter quoted Joel verbatim. How can we possibly deny the last days as having occurred in the first century? According to the Futurists, the inspired apostle didn't know when the last days were! He lied to his audience by claiming that the outpouring of the Spirit was occurring in fulfillment of Joel 2. Did you know that? Gosh, if Peter lied here, who can we trust in any piece of scripture?

And I kid you not, I've actually had a Dispensationalist tell me the outpouring of the Spirit was yet future!!!!!!

Did You Know God Can't Tell Time?

Have you ever wondered why words and phrases such as “near,” “at hand,” “quickly,” “soon,” and others, are rarely understood to be literal time indicators? Yet, those who ridicule Preterists for not taking prophecy as literally (which is incorrect) are also the same people failing to take time indicators literally, and in context. In order to fit their view, Futurists must make time indicators declaring imminence to mean the distant future. For many Futurists, myself included at one time, they never think to consider these time texts in any other way. The belief that we are in the last days is so widespread that regular church-goers and scholars alike tend to apply the Bible's audience relevance to themselves, hence why we are supposedly the last generation.

According to Futurist hermeneutics, the Bible should always be taken literally unless the Bible makes it clear to understand something otherwise. Naturally, Preterists can agree with this. However, the difference comes in understanding when and how the Bible tells us whether something is to be taken symbolically or literally. What is interesting about the Futurist perspective is, despite the apostle John's clear indication to the contrary, they understand the imagery in the book of Revelation to be literal. I find John to be quite clear that the details in this book symbolize what was about to occur:

1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which much shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: (Revelation 1:1)

The key word in this verse is “signified,” the root of which is “sign.” From the very start John is telling his readers that the message in this Revelation of Jesus Christ is full of signs, or symbolism. Knowing this, why would anyone read Revelation with a literalistic mindset? The prophecies in the Old Testament were written with the same imagery, and in this respect we are to allow the Bible to define its own imagery. Just as importantly, the Futurists fail to recognize when a statement is to be taken literally. Notice Revelation 1:1 declares that the events about to be described “must shortly come to pass.” Context alone tells us that these events were imminent, while the descriptions of them were figurative. Two verses later, John stresses the imminence again:

3Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. (Revelation 1:3)

John wrote with imminent destruction in mind. He very well knew that Christ was coming quickly, which is why he was instructed to record this important and complex prophecy. Twice did John tell his readers that these things were coming to pass quickly. The time truly was at hand. The Futurists understand this to be figurative, though. So, they will interpret the figurative imagery as literal, and the literal time indicators as figurative. I am certain I do not need to point out the poor hermeneutics involved in such interpretation.

So, does “soon” or “at hand” mean “two thousand years from now”? I don't think so. Consider the following:

1In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, 2And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (Matthew 3:1-2)

Was not the kingdom of heaven truly near? Compare this to Jesus' own words:

26And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? 27And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. 28But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. (Matthew 12:26-28)

In Matthew 3, John the Baptist was preaching the imminence of the kingdom of God. Then, from Jesus' own mouth came the verification of that very same kingdom as having come upon them. Quite some time ago I had a Futurist tell me John the Baptist's words of imminence were truly meant to be taken as such. I'm not certain she realized her own inconsistency, for she believes Revelation's time indicators are symbolic. Nevertheless, she quickly defended John the Baptist's declaration of an imminent kingdom. I was more than happy to agree with her.

Now, if the kingdom of God was “at hand” at the time of John the Baptist, and then upon them shortly afterward (during Christ's ministry), we can then understand the apostle John's words when he said the events of Revelation “must shortly come to pass,” and were “at hand.” This is just as evident in many more verses throughout the New Testament, such as the Olivet Discourse (I encourage you to read my Matthew 24 series).

One of my favorite time indicators comes from Matthew 16:

27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16:27-28)

A few problems arise when a time indicator like this is not taken literally. First, if some of those people standing there have not died, we may need to consider adopting their flawless diet and exercise routine. Second, if Jesus didn't really mean what he said, why did he say it? He was clearly addressing a particular audience, and told them that there were some standing there at that very moment who wouldn't die before Jesus came in the glory of the Father. Yet, according to the Futurists, Jesus couldn't have possibly been referring to the people standing there. The inconsistency is obvious.

A lot of people try to say that time is irrelevant to God, that his ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8-9), and he does not tell time in the way we do (2 Peter 3:8). This is a joke. Imagine if we actually applied the Day = 1,000 Years principle consistently. Consider the following:

10Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. (Revelation 2:10)

The church of Smyrna was told they would suffer tribulation ten days. If each of these days equate to one thousand years each, Smyrna would be facing tribulation for ten thousand years! Do you really find this likely? Not only is this not what was being implied, but the end times junkies can't say that we are the “last generation,” because there are about eight thousand more years to go until Smyrna's tribulations are over! This is nonsense. Are the thousand years of Revelation 20 composed of days that equal one thousand years each? Or consider that Peter also says a thousand years are as one day to the Lord. So, could this mean that the thousand years of Revelation 20 equal a mere one day?

I do not believe Futurists have what it takes to maintain any form of consistent eschatology. Recently, I joined a friend of mine in discussion with a Dispensationalist. We presented evidence for the last days occurring in the first century. As a result, she fled the discussion. She had been bested, and she knew it. This is often the case any time a Preterist enters a debate with a Futurist. The evidence presented is always enough to dismantle their positions.

In the next article, I'm going to begin discussing Mystery Babylon. Proper identification of this character is vital to understanding Revelation. I will use this topic as another argument against the Futurist eschatologies.

Blessing to all in Christ,

Jason Watt

We Are Made One

It's been a little while since I have written a new article. Lately, my efforts have been focused on Revelation 20 and the "millennium." I am also currently writing an article on the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and their cessation when "the perfect" came.

However, the issue of baptism in Full Preterism is still a heated issue right now, so I am finding it difficult to move on at this time (despite being very excited to share studies on Revelation 20 with my brethren!). I discussed this briefly in my first two articles (Baptism and the Preterist and A New Exodus and Salvation). If I had to guess, few will change their minds immediately, as is often the case. Nevertheless, this topic is something we are wise to address and discuss with one another. We should never be afraid to learn, and with learning we sometimes find ourselves corrected.

I make the effort to share my thoughts not because I wish to prove people wrong and give myself glory. I believe we should be sharpening one another, and we can't do that if we are afraid to share our thoughts. It is my hope that we can support and encourage each other through these discussions, pointing out the good points each person makes, as well as shedding light on that which we believe others have wrong.

If you have not read my first article on this topic, it should be noted that I am pro-baptism, something that is seemingly rare in the Full Preterist camp. The more I study this topic, and the more I come across the wide variety of anti-baptism arguments, the more sure I become of my position. Now, it is not to say that I find myself above correction, but I do feel very strongly about my position, and I feel I can benefit others by sharing my thoughts. So, with more details and elaboration than previously offered in my other articles, I'd like to tackle this topic once again.

The Great Commission

Prior to his ascension, Christ commissioned his apostles to go out into the nations and teach them to observe all he commanded. They were to baptize people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit:

18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:18-20)

Mark's account words things a bit differently:

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:15-16)

In both passages we find the mention of baptism. In Matthew, it is related to discipleship, while in Mark, it is mentioned in connection to salvation. I believe both connections are relevant to one being in covenant with Jesus Christ (which I define as “salvation”). It is this baptism—one of water, as I posit—that the apostles were to teach the nations to observe.

An objection many use against this comes from John the Baptist's words:

“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: (Matthew 3:11)

Many find this to be evidence that the baptism Jesus commissioned was to exclude water. I don't believe this is accurate, however. If this is telling us that Jesus would not be teaching a baptism with water, then we must believe it to be saying that he was teaching a baptism with fire and the Holy Spirit. Now, I'm not sure about you, but I find it unlikely that Jesus would command a baptism performed with an open flame. I believe he was well aware of the fact that fire burns!

Instead, John the Baptist was likely making his statement based on three points: 1) Jesus would certainly judge the wicked with fire (Matthew 3:12); 2) Jesus would also come as a refining, purifying fire (offering redemption); 3) The Holy Spirit is comparable to fire and water (Isaiah 4:2-5).

I find it unlikely that Matthew 3:12 is the sole definition of what John meant by “fire” (at least not in the sense of the baptism commanded by Christ). The “unquenchable fire” he refers to was not something that was universal. Just as the judgment that would come was not universal, neither would the baptism of the Holy Spirit be universal. This is one way we know the baptism of the Holy Spirit was a limited occurrence, confined to what we read in Acts 2:1-4 and 10:44-45. Peter later attributes what happened at Cornelius' house to being exactly what happened on the day of Pentecost (Acts 11:16). In this verse, Peter recalls Jesus' promise that they would be baptized with the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 1:5). The baptism of the Holy Spirit, as it is called, was limited to these two occurrences.

Therefore, since the baptism of the Holy Spirit was limited by the clear assertion of audience relevance (“...but YE shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost), and the judgment of “fire” was also limited, yet the command to be baptized is universal (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16), then it stands to reason that water wasn't being done away with as a method of baptism. Just as with John's baptism, there was a call to repentance before one partook of the commissioned baptism (Acts 2:38). John's baptism required water, and this method did not change when Christ commanded baptism.

The apostles did not forbid water just because someone received the Holy Spirit. If receiving the Holy Spirit was enough, then water baptism would not have been necessary, let alone commissioned by Christ. Note the following:

38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)

Repentance preceded baptism, a baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” On the day of Pentecost, the apostles were not baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, as is done during water baptism, something we can observe to note the distinction between Christ's baptism, or believer's baptism, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Repentance was called for as part of John's baptism, as well (Matthew 3:2,11). Following one's repentance, they were immersed in the water. This is no different that what occurs in the book of Acts:

36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. (Acts 8:36-39)

John was baptizing people to turn them to the Messiah, for the kingdom of heaven was at hand, and the Messiah had come (Matthew 3:2). Those whom he immersed were required to have a penitent heart. Even still, it is Jesus who takes away sins, not water. Without Christ's death, John's baptism was only a symbol of what would come; it was necessary, but it was limited in what it was meant to accomplish. This would all change after Christ's death and resurrection.

Recently, I was told that Acts 19:1-6 is not an occurrence of re-baptism. This is not correct. Observe the passage:

1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues and prophesied. (Acts 19:1-6)

There are key elements here worthy of our observation: 1) There is a difference between John's baptism and Christ's baptism; 2) John's baptism was to turn people to faith in the Messiah (19:4), while Christ's baptism was for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16); 3) These twelve disciples were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, a “formula” found elsewhere in association with water baptism after Christ's ascension (Acts 2:38; 8:36-39; 10:47-48).

This is quite clearly a case of re-baptism, one that involved water, followed by the laying on of the apostle's hands to bestow the Holy Spirit.

Jesus had commanded the apostles to teach the nations to observe all he taught, and to baptize them in his name (Matthew 28:19-20). This baptism was done by immersing the believer in water (Acts 10:47-48). The baptism commanded by Christ was not the same as the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4; 10:44-45; 11:16-17). Therefore, we can deduce that the baptisms carried out by the apostles were done with water. These baptisms were now a symbol of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, unlike John's baptism, which was for the purpose of turning people to the Messiah.

Becoming One In Christ

I believe the apostle Paul makes known to us, quite clearly, that baptism allows us to partake in Christ's death, not receive our own, personal, symbolic death. Baptism is linked solely to Christ and his work on the cross. We die Christ's death, as if we were there with him on the cross that very day. We share the tomb with Christ, the very same one he was in. We are raised as if it were the very moment he was raised. Romans 6 is where we can find such an explanation:

1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in the newness of life. 5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection: 6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. (Romans 6:1-6)

I simply have to laugh at those who believe baptism is a “work of man.” Everything about it is Christ's work. By dying with Christ, we are raised with Christ, walking in the newness of life. We are thus baptized into Christ's death, by which we receive the remission of sins through the shedding of his blood. Consider how this all works in harmony.

Baptism puts us into Christ's death (Romans 6:1-6).

Because of the shedding of his blood, there is remission of sins:

28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matthew 26:28)

16For where a testament is, there must also be of necessity the death of the testator. 17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth... 26For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (Hebrews 9:16-17,26)

Therefore, by being placed into Christ's death, we receive the effects of the blood that he shed:

38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)

16And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (Acts 22:16)

We are, at this time, made to be of one body, the body of Christ:

13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:13)

26For ye are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (Galatians 3:26-27)

The body of Christ is the Church:

22And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 23Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. (Ephesians 1:22-23)

18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the death; that in all things he might have the preeminence. (Colossians 1:18)

And the church is the bride of Christ:

23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. (Ephesians 5:23-30)

The bride of Christ happens to be the heavenly city, new Jerusalem:

2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband... 9And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. (Revelation 21:2,9)

The gates of this city are always open...:

25And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. (Revelation 21:25)

...except to those who haven't been washed by the blood of the Lamb:

27And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life. (Revelation 21:27)

Thus, when we are baptized, we have our sins remitted and we come into covenant with God, receiving the circumcision of the heart (cf. Jeremiah 4:1-4). This is the sign of the covenant, so to speak, just as physical circumcision had been used in the past (cf. Genesis 17:10-11; Exodus 12:48):

11In who also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross; (Colossians 2:11-14)

As Preterists, we recognize that coming into new Jerusalem is coming into covenant with Christ. The old heaven and old earth have been done away with, and the new creation has been established. Those of us who are baptized into Christ become part of this new creation (Romans 6:4; 2 Corinthians 5:17), for that which is old is put away. *(I encourage you to observe my brief notes on the passing of heaven and earth and how it is used in regards to the covenants: The Passing of Heaven and Earth.)

Conclusion

At this time, I am not convinced by my fellow Full Preterists that the purpose of baptism ceased at the parousia in A.D. 70. I find that they are focusing too much on this “transition period” idea, and not focusing enough on the new covenant itself, and the fact that there are people still “outside the gates” of this new covenant (Revelation 21:27). Therefore, I do not believe the requirements for entrance into this city (faith, repentance, and baptism) have ceased; not one, not any.

Truth be known, it will not be the Calvin-influenced faith-only advocates who convince me I am wrong. I know better than to be fooled again by the doctrines that I so incorrectly advocated for the first few years of my walk as a Christian. What I wish to see from my Full Preterist brethren, if they believe I am wrong and seek to prove it, is where scripture tells us the means of entrance into covenant with Christ was to change after the parousia. At this moment in time, this is at the top of my list of reasons to reject the cessationist position on baptism.

With loving regards to all,

Jason Watt





<iframe  src="http://www.preteristdoctrine.com/Baptism_webring.html" width="400" height="230" frameborder="0" 
marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no">
</iframe>