The Bride and
the Reject
Part Three:
Jerusalem allegedly
has “Seven Hills”
Damien F. Mackey
“If this passage of Enoch bears such
close resemblance to the Apocalypse, how is it that an apparent reference to
Jerusalem sitting on “seven mountains” is ignored?
Is this not easily as significant as the typically
cited idiom for Rome?”
https://bible.org/seriespage/chapter-4-evidence-jerusalem-harlot
Hundreds
of famous cities throughout the world are said to have been built upon seven hills.
A
scan through the Internet will reveal that. It is amazing what can be done with
numbers.
One
intriguing modern case is Washington DC, prompting this question:
“Is Washington DC the City of 7 Hills, the Endtimes
Babylon City?”
There
then follows this list of seven:
It is well
known that the city of Rome was built on seven hills or mountains, but did you
know that Washington DC was also has seven hills?
Yes, Washington D.C. really does have seven hills:
–
1. Capitol Hill
1. Capitol Hill
2. Meridian
Hill
3. Floral
Hills
4. Forest
Hills
5.
Hillbrook
6.
Hillcrest
7. Knox
Hill
–
In biblical prophecy, at the end of which the city of seven hills will be destroyed. Will this city be Rome or Washington?
In biblical prophecy, at the end of which the city of seven hills will be destroyed. Will this city be Rome or Washington?
[End of quote]
Well,
according to this present series, “this city” will be neither “Rome or
Washington”.
For,
as we read in Part Two, Dr. E. L. Martin
’s account
of the “Seven Hills” of Apocalypse:
these
were situated in ancient Jerusalem.
And
here is another account expressing the same viewpoint:
{From the series: The Identification Of Babylon The Harlot In The Book Of Revelation}
Chapter 4: The Evidence For Jerusalem As The Harlot
The City on Seven Hills
Advocates of
the Rome view have regularly argued that strong, if not conclusive support for
their interpretation can be found in Rev 17:9 which describes the “seven
hills/mountains” (eJpta o[rh)
on which the woman sits. It is beyond dispute that Rome was very commonly
called the “city on seven hills” because of its topography.21
A number of references to this in ancient literature could be cited, including,
for example, Virgil,22
Horace,23
and Cicero.24
Understandably then, many commentators see this verse as a clear indicator that
John is speaking of Rome and doing so in the common language of the day.25
Certainly, it cannot be denied that this is a very significant argument for the
Rome view.
However, this
line of reasoning is not without its problems, and I believe there may be a
more suitable understanding of this verse, one that seems to have been largely
overlooked by most writers.
One hindrance
to an assured link here is the question of how widespread this terminology for
Rome really was. Few actually raise this issue, but the truth is that the
evidence to which we have access only places this “seven hills” language in the
Western Mediterranean regions. As far as whether this usage was familiar in the
East, we simply do not know. There just is not any record to indicate this for
us.26
It may be hasty therefore to automatically presume that this Roman reference
would be the shared understanding in Asia Minor.
It could be
added, as Beale observes, that every other occurrence of o[ra in Revelation refers to a
mountain, not a “hill,” and this may caution us further against viewing 17:9 as
a reference to the “hills” of Rome.27
Certainly, the term can go either way lexically, but within the context of this
book, a departure from the “mountain” image evoked elsewhere would be
unexpected, and should probably be avoided in our translation if possible. A
more likely connection is the association of mountains with the symbolism of
power and kings/kingdoms that is to be found in the Old Testament and other
Jewish works.28
“Seven,” of course, is often symbolic of completion or perfection, and thus it
may be that the seven mountains are best understood from a Jewish mindset as a
symbol of completeness of authority, or fullness of royal power.29
Still, in harmony with this imagery there is background material to be
considered here that may very well give us insight into which royal
power we are dealing with.
As a number of
scholars have recognized, the pseudepigraphal book of 1 Enoch bears
numerous striking affinities with the Apocalypse of John; several are even
persuaded of literary dependence of portions of the Apocalypse upon Enoch.30
Others are more cautious; Bauckham for instance feels we may not have enough
evidence to conclusively identify literary dependence on such a work, though
the parallels that must be acknowledged at least give clear testimony to
traditional imagery that was already prevalent in Jewish culture prior to
Revelation.31
The
significance of 1 Enoch for our study is that certain passages paint
images that are intriguingly similar to Rev 17:9. In 1 Enoch 24–25,32
the writer describes his journey to a certain place on earth where he
encounters a great mountain. This great mountain, as the angel Michael explains,
is the location of “the throne of God … on which the Holy and Great Lord of
Glory, the Eternal King, will sit when he descends to visit the earth with
goodness.”33
Furthermore, this place is associated with God’s end-time city-paradise where
the elect will find the “fragrant tree” (v. 4) that will give them “fruit for
life” (v. 5) in the eschaton, and this tree will be planted “upon the holy
place” (v. 5). Clearly, in some sense Jerusalem (albeit in its eschatologically
idealized form), or at least the future mountain-throne of Yahweh, is the site
being painted with such gloriously vivid language. This passage is in fact
regularly cited by commentators for background imagery underlying John’s
depiction of the New Jerusalem with its great mountain, throne, and tree of
life in Rev 21–22.34
What is not
mentioned in these discussions is that the passage also says this great
mountain is seated among “seven dignified mountains” (24:2). These
“seven mountains” (v. 3) are elaborately described as to their appearance and
formation in 24:2–3, and the central, taller mountain of the seven is then
revealed as the place of God’s earthly rule (25:3–6).35
In surveying
the major commentaries, I have been surprised to find no mention of this
passage in connection with Rev
17:9, though it is repeatedly cited as background for the New
Jerusalem.36
If this passage of Enoch bears such close resemblance to the Apocalypse,
how is it that an apparent reference to Jerusalem sitting on “seven mountains”
is ignored? Is this not easily as significant as the typically cited idiom for
Rome? Interestingly, Beale references 4 Ezra for more imagery of the restored
Jerusalem, and even notes that work’s amplification of “great mountain” imagery
to “seven great mountains,”37
yet he makes no connection with the “seven mountains” of Revelation.38
This seems an unfortunate oversight. Nonetheless, this gives a second example
in the apocalyptic tradition for portraying the place of God’s future earthly
rule (no doubt the idealized Jerusalem) as located among seven mountains.39
Based on this
evidence, I do not find the “city on seven hills” argument for Rome to be as
persuasive as I once did. It would seem that a very compelling case can be made
that the stream of Jewish apocalyptic tradition energizing Revelation more naturally
evokes the image of Jerusalem as the city seated on seven mountains in 17:9
than Rome. The view that Babylon is a cipher for Jerusalem in the Apocalypse
cannot then be dismissed on the basis of this common objection; not only can it
be defended that the evidence of 17:9 can fit Jerusalem, there are
strong reasons to believe that it in fact does most properly fit
Jerusalem.40
….
