Antonia as the prætorium of the procurator Pontius Pilate

 

 

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

Moving on, Herod ‘the Great’ was well and truly dead by the time

that Simon Maccabee undertook his immense restorative work in Jerusalem.

Though Herod was a formidable builder (including the Pantheon),

he never built any third Temple in Jerusalem.

 

 

 

Introduction

 

That the Antonia was the praetorium is a traditional Christian view:

Antonia Fortress Explained

 

“Traditionally, Christians have believed for centuries that the vicinity of the Antonia Fortress was the site of Pontius Pilate' praetorium, where Jesus was tried for high treason. This was based on the assumption that an area of Roman flagstones discovered beneath the Church of the Condemnation and the Convent of the Sisters of Zion was 'the pavement' which John 19:13 describes as the location of Jesus' trial”.

 

And this is the traditional view as to how it got its name, Antonia?

 

“The Antonia Fortress (Aramaic: קצטרא דאנטוניה) was a citadel built by Herod the Great and named for Herod's patron Mark Antony …”.

 

But this view brings with it certain chronological difficulties from a conventional perspective:

 

“The construction date is controversial because the name suggests that Herod built Antonia before the defeat of Mark Antony by Octavian in 31–30 BCE and Mark Antony's suicide in 30 BCE. Herod is famous for being an apt diplomat and pragmatist, who always aligned himself with the winning side and the "man in charge" of Rome. It is somewhat difficult to bring this date in accordance with the presumed date for the construction of the Herodian Temple”.

 

It brings even greater difficulties when “Herod”, here, meaning King Herod ‘the Great’,

is properly identified in relation to Octavian. For we are actually in the Greek, Seleucid, era of the Maccabees. Octavian is Julius Caesar Augustus, a Greek - the infamous emperor Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ - and Herod is his right-hand man, Marcus Agrippa, a great builder in antiquity:

 

Herod, the emperor’s signet right-hand man

 

(2) Herod, the emperor's signet right-hand man

 

He was a barbaric Phrygian (2 Maccabees 5:22).

 

Names, at this time, can be Greek: Caesar, Pontius, Pilate, praetorion, lithostrōton:

 

Pontius Pilate chose Greek before Latin

 

(2) Pontius Pilate chose Greek before Latin

 

The emperor Hadrian, who was a Grecophile, was the Seleucid monster, ‘Epiphanes’:

 

Time to consider Hadrian, that ‘mirror-image’ of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus

 

(2) Time to consider Hadrian, that 'mirror-image' of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus

 

He was probably also that marvellously mixed together Julian-Antiochus character, Gaius Julius Antiochus Epiphanes Philopappus:

 

Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’ Tripled?

 

(2) Antiochus IV 'Epiphanes' Tripled?

 

This was the era of the Nativity of Jesus Christ, and so, of course, there has to be a rebel Judas at the time of the Census (a duplication of Judas Maccabeus):

 

Judas the Galilean vitally links Maccabean era to Daniel 2’s “rock cut out of a mountain”

 

(2) Judas the Galilean vitally links Maccabean era to Daniel 2’s “rock cut out of a mountain”

 

And there has to be war going on in and around Jerusalem:

 

Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus

 

(2) Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus

 

Moving on, Herod ‘the Great’ was well and truly dead by the time that Simon Maccabee undertook his immense restorative work in Jerusalem. Though Herod was, as said, a formidable builder (including the Pantheon), he never built any third Temple in Jerusalem:

 

Only two Temples of Yahweh ever stood in City of Jerusalem

 

(3) Only two Temples of Yahweh ever stood in City of Jerusalem

 

How did the Antonia Fortress really get its name?

 

It was, as we have learned above, the prætorium of Pontius Pilate.

 

Well, according to my newly revised article identifying:

 

Procurator Pontius Pilate and Procurator Marcus Ant. Felix

 

(3) Procurator Pontius Pilate and Procurator Marcus Ant. Felix

 

Pontius Pilate must have been named, also, Marcus Antonius, which, again, can be a Greek name, Markos Antonios:

Marc Anthony Name » AstroInsightz

“The name Anthony, or “Antonius” in Latin, is believed to be derived from the Greek name “Antonios” (Αντόνιος) …”.

 

Pontius Pilate Markos Antonios, a late contemporary of the Greek emperor, Augustus, must have been the matrix for that legendary character, the colourful Mark Antony, close friend of the regally ambivalent legend, Julius Caesar:

 

‘ARE YOU A KING THEN?’

JOHN 18:37

 

 

 

Dating the biblical books before 70 AD

  

“As it relates to the dating of New Testament books, the pioneering labor of

John A. T. Robinson in his scholarly work Redating the New Testament 

is of great importance. He argues persuasively that all the books of

the New Testament were written before 70 A.D.”.

 Jim Seghers

 

Dates of the New Testament – Preterist Archives

 

DATING THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT – OR –
THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES
by Jim Seghers

 

The majority of modern scripture scholars attribute late dates to the composition of the New Testament books in the form that we now have them. This is particularly true of the four Gospels. It is usually claimed that Mark was the first gospel written around A.D. 70. Matthew’s composition is dated in the 80’s, followed by Luke in the late 80’s. The Gospel of John is given a composition date in the 90’s.

 

One may be inclined to think, “So what! After all, regardless of the dates attributed to their composition, each book remains the written word of God because the Holy Spirit is the principal author. What does it matter?” Actually, it matters a great deal.

One naturally assumes that the proponents of late composition dates, men with academic degrees, base their conclusions on sound scholarship that is rooted in recent discoveries in History, Archeology, Patristics, Papyrology and other related fields. This is especially true because these scholars pride themselves on their “scientific” approach to biblical interpretation. Certainly, it would seem that their arguments must be buttressed by the data coming from objective research. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those supporting late authorship base their statements solely on the wobbly foundation of their own fanciful imaginations. Why is this so?

Late authorship fits conveniently into their first principles, which rejects the possibility of any reality that is beyond the scope of their personal experience. They make the limits of their finite intellects and narrow experiences the measure of God’s activity in the world he created out of nothing. Thus accounts of miracles, the resurrection, claims that Jesus is God, the definition of his mission, the founding of the Church with its hierarchical authority, and statements attributed to Jesus cannot be part of what is the actual inspired word of God. Rather these “beliefs” are explained away as a late editing which merely reflects the tenets of Christians far removed from eyewitnesses and the actual words of Jesus. These claims, of course, have no documented foundation in any historical sense of the word. In order to support this evolutionary flight of fancy it is necessary to claim that the gospels had late compositions.

 

Starting from this faithless, secular viewpoint it is easy to understand why Mark was selected as the first gospel written and the source of Matthew and Luke. This is expedient because Mark lacks many of the “embellishments” found in Matthew and Luke, for example, the institution of the Church on Peter, and the miracles surrounding Jesus birth. Support is drawn from another fashionable invention the Q document, so called from the German word quelle, “source.” “Q” is a hypothetical source from which it is claimed the Synoptic Gospels drew common material. There is no historical evidence that Q ever existed except, of course, in the fertile imaginations of revisionist scholars. The result of this foolishness is a whole system of biblical interpretation based on the myths fabricated by their creators who, themselves, have become the embodiment of the fable, The Emperor’s New Clothes. In the fable of The Emperor’s New Clothes, it required the uninhibited innocence of a child to proclaim, “The king is Nude!”

 

The resulting interpretations of many modern biblical scholars are so methodologically flawed that they should be the subjects of derision not serious study.

 

Unfortunately, just as in the fable there were many that gawkishly admired the Emperor’s invisible attire, so today there are many who fawn over these illusionary conclusions based on invisible data. At the college and university levels these speculations are taught with indiscriminate dogmatism. Woe to the inquiring student who dares to challenge these pronouncements! One is left to wonder if St. Paul foresaw these times when he prophesied: “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own liking, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths” (2 Tim 4:4). Fortunately, amid this academic madness there are voices that are exposing the nudity of much in modern biblical studies.

 

As it relates to the dating of New Testament books, the pioneering labor of John A. T. Robinson in his scholarly work Redating the New Testament is of great importance. He argues persuasively that all the books of the New Testament were written before 70 A.D. Modernists have refused to seriously investigate his scholarship, choosing instead to ignore it. However, Robinson’s thesis provides a reasonable assumption of composition dates based on sound scholarship not ideological illusion.

 

Recently the scholarly work of the papyrologist, Carsten Peter Thiede (d. 2004), has received widespread notice. He persuasively argues that Matthew’s Gospel is the account of an eyewitness to the events of Jesus’ life. His pathfinding book written with Matthew D’Ancona, Eyewitness to Jesus, published in 1996, argues that the Magdalen Papyrus of St. Matthew’s Gospel was written around A.D. 60.

 

Between Robinson and Thiede other persuasive voices have also challenged the late dating nonsense.

 

Gunther Zuntz, the internationally recognized authority on Hellenistic Greek, assigned the date 40 A.D. as the most likely date of Mark’s composition. Orchard and Riley in their book, The Order of the Synoptics, argue that Matthew was written in A.D. 43. Reicke’s “Synoptic Prophecies on the Destruction of Jerusalem,” in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen P. Wikgren, 1972, give the years 50-64 A.D. for the composition of Matthew. Eta Linnemann’s two works: Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology? and Is There a Synoptic Problem? Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels provide a piercing debunking of the myths of modern biblical scholarship. What makes her arguments so penetrating is the fact that she studied under Rudolf Bultmann and Ernst Fuchs.

 

Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. in his doctoral dissertation, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation, argues persuasively that John wrote the Book of Revelation before 70 A.D. David Chilton in his excellent commentary on the Book of Revelation, The Days of Vengeance, comes to the same conclusion. Dating of the Book of Revelation is important since even most revisionist scholars affirm that it was the last New Testament book written.

 

The impressive work of Claude Tresmontant, a distinguished scholar at the Sorbonne, confirms Robinson’s thesis. He bases his arguments on language and archaeology. He points out, for example, that in John 5:2 that “there is [estin in Greek, not “was”] at Jerusalem, at the sheep gate, a pool named in Hebrew Bethzatha. It has five porticos.” This makes no sense if Jerusalem was reduced to a heap of stones 25 or 30 years earlier. (See: Claude Tresmontant, The Hebrew Christ and The Gospel of Matthew.) Father Jean Carmignac of Paris also assigns early composition to the four Gospels. Carmignac, a philologist with exceptional skills in biblical Hebrew, was a noted scholar of the Dead Sea scrolls and the world’s most renowned expert on the Our Father. His The Birth of the Synoptic Gospels is a lucid summary of his thesis.

 

 

As a result of the persuasive erudition of these and other scholars a shift is occurring away from the blind acceptance of late New Testament authorship. An example of this shift is reflected in Fr. George H. Duggan’s fine article in the May 1997 issue of Homiletic & Pastoral Review titled: “The Dates of the Gospels.” By the grace of God may this trend continue!

 

February 7, 1998

 

+ + + + + +

 

 

Damien Mackey comments:

 

Read also:

 

Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early

 

(4) Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early

 

Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early. Part Two: Institut Catholique de Paris ignores Carmignac

 

(4) Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early. Part Two: Institut Catholique de Paris ignores Carmignac

 

 

 

Great Harlot Antichrist City

 

by

 Damien F. Mackey

 

  

“Some have identified the Beast as being an individual such as the Pope,

Martin Luther, John Calvin, William of Orange or Hitler. Others have seen the Beast more as a group or movement of people, such as the apostate Roman Church, the Protestants, the Roman Empire (or the Common Market), the Roman persecuting power of the first century, or some other great world-power

that will rise up to persecute Christians”.

prererist.org

 

 

Introduction

 

Thanks to the influence of Preterist (as they call themselves) commentators, many of whom are presumably Protestants, a lot has changed since the days when the Beast of the Apocalypse was the pope (papacy) and the “Babylon” of Revelation was his Rome.

 

I, often inspired by writings of a Preterist nature, have written articles such as:

 

Literal Interpretation of Saint John’s Revelation

 

(2) Literal Interpretation of Saint John’s Revelation

 

Apocalypse Now? Or Then?

 

(4) Apocalypse Now? Or Then?

 

Apocalyptic Apoplexy

 

(4) Apocalyptic Apoplexy

 

Theme of Apocalypse – the Bride and the Reject

 

(4) Theme of Apocalypse – the Bride and the Reject

 

Josephus a key to the Book of Revelation

 

(3) Josephus a key to the Book of Revelation

 

Jewish Zealots like a wild beast grown mad ... eating its own flesh

 

(3) Jewish Zealots like a wild beast grown mad ... eating its own flesh

 

Book of Apocalypse based on Hebrew imagery

 

(4) Book of Apocalypse based on Hebrew imagery

 

Jesus Christ came as Bridegroom

 

(4) Jesus Christ came as Bridegroom

 

Stephen ‘Protomartyr’ is key to understanding ‘Beast’ of Revelation 13

 

(4) Stephen 'Protomartyr' is key to understanding 'Beast' of Revelation 13

 

Michal Hunt, writing for Agape Bible Study, has written well on the subject in:

 

CHAPTER 17: Babylon the Great Harlot and the Mystery Explained

 

Babylon the Great Harlot and the Mystery Explained

Succession Arrangements Continued

 

"....and the peace of God which is beyond our understanding will guard your hearts and thoughts in Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:7

 

"Their corpses lie in the main street of the great city known by the symbolic names Sodom and Egypt, in which their Lord was crucified." Revelation 11:8

 

 "At the end of the Passover meal after everyone has received the wine of the Cup of Acceptance, the host announces the completion of the meal and the recommitment to the Covenant by calling out 'teltelestai' which means "it is finished" or "it is fulfilled."  Christ in the Passover

 

"A jar full of sour wine stood there; so putting a sponge soaked in the wine on a hyssop stick, they held it up to his mouth. After Jesus had taken the wine he said, "it is fulfilled'; and bowing his head he gave up his spirit." John 19:30

 

"The 7^th angel emptied his bowl into the air, and a great voice boomed out from the sanctuary, 'The end has come (IT IS FULFILLED)."  Revelation 16:17

 

*Old Testament reference: "The Great Harlot" Ezekiel chapters 16 & 23

In Revelation 11:8 the "Great City" was identified symbolically as both Egypt and Sodom.  After the sacrificial "pouring out" of the 7 chalices by the 7 angel/ministers of the Heavenly Temple it should be clear why this "Great City" is identified as both Egypt and Sodom. 

 

Question:  Why is this "Great City" identified with Egypt after the Chalice judgments? See Rev. 11:8. 

Answer: Egypt because of the "plagues" contained in the chalices, which correspond to the plagues of Egypt (see the Chart comparing the Chalice and Trumpet judgments to the Plagues of Egypt).

 

Question:  Why is this "Great City" also identified with Sodom (see Rev. 11:8). Hint: What happened to Sodom?

Answer:  The "Great City" is like Sodom because Sodom was destroyed by fire and like Sodom, the destruction will be complete!  After 31/2 months of the Roman siege and the intense suffering of the population, the city of Jerusalem was destroyed by fire on the 9^th of Ab 70AD the same day Jerusalem and the Temple of Solomon was destroyed in 586(7)BC.

 

The "Great City" where Christ was crucified (Rev. 11:8) had become a "false prophet" in her testimony to the world that Jesus was not the Messiah, and in her apostasy she had become a "great harlot" and a "false bride." This "Great City" that will be destroyed by fire and who has become a "False Bride" identifies both Biblically and historically with the city "once full of fair judgment," the city of Jerusalem.  In this chapter the "Great City" will be symbolically identified as "Babylon." 

 

…. Jerusalem was meant to be the true "gate of heaven"; God's holy witness to the nations of the world.  But Jerusalem, whose name means "will provide peace" rejected God and the "peace of God which is beyond our understanding" when she rejected Jesus, the Messiah, God come in the flesh.  "The faithful city, what a harlot she has become: Zion, once full of fair judgment, where saving justice used to dwell, but now assassins!" Isaiah 1:21 (circa 740BC)

Please read Ezekiel chapter 16

Ezekiel 16:35-36 (Yahweh to Jerusalem) "Very well, whore, hear the word of Yahweh!  The Lord Yahweh says this:

 

For having squandered your money (literally "poured out [ekcheo] your bronze" [meaning "lust"]) and let yourself be seen naked while whoring with your lovers and all the foul idols of your loathsome practices and for giving them your children's blood for this I shall assemble all the lovers to whom you have given pleasure,... (v.58) "You have brought this on yourself, with your lewdness and your loathsome practices" declares the Lord Yahweh.  (Yahweh's message to Ezekiel 5 years before the destruction of Jerusalem in 586(7)BC)

 

Please read Revelation 17:1-7 Babylon the Great Harlot; the False Bride

Revelation 17: 1-2 "One of the seven angels that had the seven bowls came to speak to me and said, 'Come here and I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute (harlot) who is enthroned beside abundant waters, with whom all the kings of the earth have prostituted themselves, and who has made all the population of the world (those who dwell on the land) drunk with the wine of her adultery.'"  This is the 11^th time the phrase "those who dwell on the land" is used in Revelation. As you will recall, I have mentioned that this phrase is symbolic for apostate Israel and is used 12 times in Revelation; once for each of the 12 tribes of Israel: Rev. 3:10; 6:10; 8:13; 11:10 [twice]; 13:8, 12, 14 [twice]; 14:6; 17:2,8). 

 

Question:  In what verses was "the city" symbolized as Babylon in previous chapters and what was the judgment prophesized for "the city"?  Hint chapters 14 and 16. 

Answer: John has already been told that "the city" is symbolized as Babylon by the second of the three sets of angels of the Temple in Revelation 14:8 "a second angel followed him (the first angel), calling, 'Babylon has fallen, Babylon the Great has fallen, Babylon which gave the whole world the wine of retribution to drink.'" And again he was told in Rev. 16:18c-19 "The Great City was split into three parts and the cities of the world collapsed; Babylon the Great was not forgotten: God made her drink the full winecup of his retribution."  The original city of Babylon no longer existed in the 1^st century.  It had been the site of the building of the infamous tower of Babel in the land of Shinar … and had become the capital city of the Babylonian Empire, the world power that had destroyed Judah and Jerusalem in 586(7) BC. 

 

But John's city is not the original Babylon, instead ancient Babylon is a symbolic image of this city.  The clue lies in the description that this city sits or "is enthroned" beside "abundant waters."  This phrase can also be translated "many waters."  It is polus hydra in the Greek.  This is an image of the prophet Jeremiah's description of Babylon in his great oracle judgment against the city in Jeremiah chapters 50-51. "Enthroned beside abundant waters, rich in treasures, you now meet your end, the finish of your pillaging." (Jeremiah 51:13).  J

…. But ultimately the term "many waters" is used Biblically to refer to the abundant blessings that God bestows on His people. Yahweh even gave His blessing to Babylon but she prostituted those blessings for her own glory and rejected Yahweh.  Later in Rev. 17:15 we will told of an important aspect of the symbolic meaning of the term "many waters" but in this verse the point is the identification of the Harlot city with the ancient city Babylon who accepted God's blessings but turned from Him. 

 

Question:  So what is the connection between 'blessings' and Babylon and Jerusalem?

Answer: No other city in the world received more of God's blessings than the city of Jerusalem, but like Babylon she turned from Yahweh, prostituted herself and rejected God the Messiah and in doing this Israel (Judah) the Old Covenant Church and her priests have led "those who dwell on the Land" astray and into adultery.  They became "drunk with the wine of her adultery"; they become seduced into such a spiritual stupor that they did not even recognize their own Messiah and therefore have forfeited God's many blessings.

           

Let's look at the Biblical use of the words "many waters" or "abundant waters" and its significance in Scripture.  Biblically this expression is set within God's Covenant relationships reflected in His "abundant" blessings and in His liturgical interaction with His people.  In all the passages the Greek is the same "polus hydra" (Greek translation of Old Testament and Greek New Testament). Examples:

 

1.      Jeremiah 51:13: Babylon's abundance granted by God: "Enthroned beside        

abundant waters, rich in treasures, you now meet your end, the finish of your pillaging."

2.      Ezekiel 1:24: the voice from the Glory-Cloud sounds like many or abundant

waters and is produced by the innumerable angels in the heavenly council: "I also heard the noise of their wings; when they moved, it was like the noise of flood-waters [polus hydra], like the voice of Shaddai, like the noise of a storm, like the noise of an armed camp.."

3. Revelation 1:15: God's voice from heaven "as the sound of many waters" as His voice is similarly described in Ezek. 43:2 "like the sound of the ocean" (literally "many waters" polus hydra) and Rev. 14:2 "like the sound of the ocean" (literally many waters polus hydra)

4.  Revelation 17:1 "the great prostitute who is enthroned beside abundant waters" (polus hydra); the "city" to whom God has given many blessings.

5.  Rev. 19:5-6 "Then a voice came from the throne; it said, 'Praise our God, you servants of his and those who fear him, small and great alike.'  And I heard what seemed to be the voices of a huge crowd, like the sound of the ocean (many waters/ polus hydra) or the great roar of thunder, answering, 'alleluia!  The reign of the Lord our God Almighty has begun.." = Liturgical praise.

 

Given the Biblical background and context of the phrase "many waters" or "abundant waters" (polus hydra) it would be no surprise to John's readers that the Bride of Yahweh would be seen seated on "many waters"; the surprise is that she is a whore!

 

This Bride has received God's blessings and has prostituted them.  (I refer you again to Ezekiel chapter 16 in which Yahweh condemns Israel in a long allegory as a faithless wife, a "whore" of alien gods, and Romans 2:17-24 (verse 23-24 "If, while you are boasting of the Law, you disobey it, then you are bringing God into contempt.  As scripture says: It is your fault that the name of God is held in contempt among the nations.")

           

I should mention that a number of commentators identify the "harlot city" as Rome, the geographic center of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.  John's 1^st century readers certainly would not have accepted this interpretation.  Martin Luther championed this interpretation when he was excommunicated from the Church in the 16^th century.  Luther saw the Church of Rome as the Harlot Bride and the Pope as the Antichrist.  Interestingly enough, Pope Leo X in turn saw Luther as the Antichrist! 

 

But the Church, which is founded by Christ through Peter, His Vicar, stands on the promise that Jesus made in Matthew 16:16 that "the gates of Hades will not prevail against her" because she is the True and Holy Bride of Christ.  The Church of Jesus Christ is full of sinners yet she is the sinless Bride. 

           

Question:  But is there a warning for us in the 21^st century Church?  Did the Old Covenant Church believe that judgment could lead to destruction of their Temple and  the transformation of their Covenant?

Answer:  Even though the True Bride, New Covenant Church has the promise of Christ's protection we should never become so overly comfortable that we fall into complacency and therefore fall into the danger of unfaithfulness through unorthodox belief. 

 

We have so many blessings but how many Catholics truly understand their faith? 

…. It is only through ignorance that we lose Catholics to other denominations.  After all, if one truly believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist how could one leave Him?  And yet, every year thousands of Catholics leave Mother Church.

 

Biblically the imagery of the "False Bride" is a familiar image.  In Biblical symbolism the motif of the Bride falling into adultery and harlotry identifies God's Covenant people falling into apostasy.  To go after false gods and to abandon the sacred Covenant is equaled with adultery and harlotry.  This metaphor of harlotry is exclusively used in the Old Testament for a city or a nation that has abandoned God's holy Covenant and rejected God.  This imagery is always used for faithless Israel, "Bride of Yahweh" with only 2 exceptions:

 

1.      The Phoenician city of Tyre and

2.      the Assyrian capital city Nineveh. 

 

These are the 2 cities, outside of Israel, that had both been in covenant with God.  See 1Kings 5:1-12; 9:13; Is. 23:17; and Amos 1:9. 

 

The city of Tyre was converted to the worship of Yahweh during King David's reign in the early 11 century BC and her king contracted a covenant with Solomon (David's son) and assisted in the building of God's Holy Temple on Mt. Moriah in Jerusalem. The passage in Revelation 17:2"with whom all the kings of the earth have prostituted themselves.."  is taken from Isaiah's prophecy against Tyre where it primarily refers to her international commerce through which her influence and beliefs spread (Isaiah 23:15-17). 

 

The other city is Nineveh, the capital of the Assyrian Empire.  The city of Nineveh was converted through the work of God's prophet Jonah and her king declared Yahweh the true God.  See Jonah 3:5-10.

Later the apostasy of these 2 cities would be considered unfaithfulness to Yahweh expressed as harlotry.  Pagan Rome of the 1^st century never entered into such a covenant relationship.

 

The other important point in the identification of the "False Bride" city is that she will be identified in contrast to another city.

 

Question:  What is the second city that is described in contrast to the Great City identified as the Harlot, the False Bride?  Hint: see Rev. 21:1-2. 

Answer: the "True Bride", the Church of the New Covenant founded by Christ, the "New" Jerusalem.  The identification of the "False Bride" as opposed to the "True Bride" only makes sense if the "New" Jerusalem is in contrast to the "Old" Jerusalem that has rejected Christ as her bridegroom and has become a False, Harlot Bride!  She has become like the builders of the tower of Babel that was built on the site of the city of Babylon.  Babel literally meant, "gate of God," but in rejecting Yahweh He judged them, cast down their tower and scattered the nations and confused their tongues. 

 

Question:  What was the reversal of the "confusion of tongues" at the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11:1-9? Hint: see Acts chapter 2. 

Answer:  The second great Pentecost was the reversal of the Tower of Babel.  God the Holy Spirit came in "tongues of fire" and all the people present understood one language and the one message of salvation which would once again unite all nations in a Holy Covenant that would open the gates of Heaven through Christ the Savior, the Bridegroom of the New Covenant, universal Church and once again God's blessing would flow as "many waters;" Rev. 22:1 "Then the angel showed me the river of life, rising from the throne of God and of the Lamb and flowing crystal-clear."  

 

Revelation 17: 3-4 "He took me in spirit to a desert, and there I saw a woman riding a scarlet beast which had seven heads and ten horns and had blasphemous titles written all over it.  The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet and glittered with gold and jewels and pearls, and she was holding a gold winecup filled with the disgusting filth of her prostitution..."

This woman is in a "spiritual desert," an abode of demons (Matt 12:34 Jesus said: "When an unclean spirit goes out of someone it wanders through waterless country looking for a place to rest, and cannot find one.")  In chapter 12 we saw the Woman, the True Bride, being forced to flee from the Dragon into the desert for a time where God protected her.  But to the False Bride, the wilderness is her element where she chooses to remain instead of accepting the Messiah and following Him to her inheritance: the Promised Land.  Therefore, the "wilderness" becomes her destiny and her heritage (see Num ch 13-14; Zech 5:5-11).

 

….

Some commentators point out that the Red Dragon of Revelation chapter 12 is connected by the same color to the Red Beast of Revelation chapter 17 but the Greek does not indicate the same color.  Instead the color of the Beast in chapter 17 (Gr. kokkinon) matches the woman's own dress in verse 4 whereas the Red Dragon in Revelation 12:3 is the color of fire (Gr. purros). 

Kokkinon is crimson blended with dark blue (see Isaiah 1:18).  It was a color used to attract attention (for example, the scarlet thread attached to the first twin of Tamar in Genesis 38:28 and to the home of Rahab in Joshua 2:18). 

 

Question:  What is significant about the way the Harlot is clothed? 

Answer:  Some commentators suggest the color is an indication of ungodly conduct (for example Isaiah 1:18 "sin like scarlet" and Psalms 51:5) and that the color stands in sharp contrast to the white garments of the elect.  But other commentators suggest that she is not dressed as a prostitute.  Please see Gen. 2:11-12; Ex. 3:22; Proverbs 31:21-22; Isa 54:11-12; 60:5-11; Ezek 16:11-14; Ezek 28:9-29; Rev. 4:3-4; Rev. 21:18-21.  In these passages the description of her clothing is in keeping with the Biblical descriptions of the glorious "City of God" in Isaiah and Revelation.  There is also a connection to the pattern of the jewels that covered the high priest's garments in Exodus chapter 28 and the Throne of God in Rev. 4:3-4.  Exodus, Ezekiel and Proverbs all describe the dress of a Bride with such finery.  In other words, it is possible that to first century readers that this woman is dressed as a "righteous woman", as a Bride.  She is adorned in the beautiful garments of the Church.  If this interpretation is correct, the Harlot Bride is still carrying the outward adornments of the chaste Old Covenant Bride of Yahweh!

 

Revelation 17:4 "she was holding a gold winecup.."

Question:  What is the wine of her fornication and what contrast or parody is there to the winecup of Holy Eucharist?  See Revelation 17:6

Answer:  The wine of her fornication is the blood of the Saints and the blood of the witnesses (martyrs) of Jesus it is in contrast to the holy and pure golden cup of Christ's blood that He offers those of the Covenant who are in a state of grace. ….

 

 

 

 

 

Seleucid Akra tormented the Jews

by Damien F. Mackey … many good researchers, closely following the ancient records, have determined that Haram al-Sharif definitely was not where the Jerusalem Temples had been built. A decade ago, in 2015, there was great excitement amongst archaeologists that the hitherto elusive Akra (Acra) fortress built by the Seleucid invaders in Jerusalem had been discovered. Brent Nagtegaal wrote about it enthusiastically a few years later: Fortress of Antiochus Epiphanes Uncovered in Jerusalem | ArmstrongInstitute.org Fortress of Antiochus Epiphanes Uncovered in Jerusalem Hannukah’s nemesis comes to life in 2015 discovery By Brent Nagtegaal • December 20, 2019 His article will require some correction (my comments to be added). He wrote: In November 2015, the Israel Antiquities Authority (iaa) sent a news brief to reporters in Jerusalem, calling for a press conference the following day to announce the “solution to one of the greatest questions in the history of Jerusalem.” The announcement did not disappoint: On site, in Jerusalem’s City of David, archaeologist Doron Ben-Ami announced that the famed Akra (citadel) of Antiochus Epiphanes had been discovered. Up until that announcement, little had been found testifying to the massive Hellenistic intrusion into the city early in the second century b.c.e. Yet here, at the northwestern portion of the City of David, a massive section of a city wall from that very period was found under layers and layers of construction from later civilizations. Damien Mackey’s comment: A chronological correction. While “the second century b.c.e.” is the standard era for Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes, this will need to undergo some lowering if I am right in my revised identification of this Seleucid king: Time to consider Hadrian, that ‘mirror-image’ of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus (4) Time to consider Hadrian, that 'mirror-image' of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus Brent Nagtegaal continues: Along with the city wall, the base of a fortification tower was unearthed, having a width of over 3.5 meters (12 feet) and a length of over 18 meters (60 feet). Attached to the lower portion of the wall was a sloped embankment known as a glacis. This was made up of layers of soil, stone and plaster designed to keep attackers away from the base of the wall, a key feature of a defensive city wall. According to the press release from the iaa, this glacis extended as far down as the bottom of the Tyropoeon valley, the depression on the western part of the ancient city. Around the massive wall, lead slingstones typical of Antiochus’s army were discovered, as well as bronze arrowheads featuring a trident symbol on them—the mark associated with Epiphanes. Further corroborating the dating of the wall were a number of coins, the earliest of which dates to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. On top of that, hundreds of pottery handles impressed with markings from Rhodes that were used for wine vessels were also discovered, testifying to the Hellenistic nature of the fortress’s inhabitants. While one can rarely be 100 percent sure of the identification of such a site, the evidence certainly does support the conclusion that this building is indeed the famed Akra. Fortress of Antiochus Following an unsuccessful bid to conquer the Ptolemaic kingdom in Egypt in 168 b.c.e., Antiochus iv (Epiphanes) ventured back to Judea and unleashed one of history’s most atrocious anti-Semitic attacks on the fledgling province of Judea. He ransacked the capital city of Jerusalem, sacrificed swine flesh on the altar of sacrifice in the temple courtyard, and then set up a statue of Jupiter in the holy of holies. Afterward, he ravished the countryside in order to destroy any vestige of the Holy Scriptures he could find, as well as killing those who would not comply with his decrees. Then, in order to ensure the Jews didn’t rebel, he constructed a massive fortress in the northern part of the City of David and stationed a permanent garrison of his troops there. Damien Mackey’s comment: Now for a geographical correction. This is where the sensational find starts to unwind in terms of it being the Akra. Its position here “in the northern part of the City of David” is perfectly correct if the standard geography is followed, according to which the Jerusalem Temples had once stood at today’s Temple Mount, Haram al-Sharif. But many good researchers, closely following the ancient records (e.g. Marilyn Sams below), have determined that Haram al-Sharif definitely was not where the Jerusalem Temples had been built. See also my article on this: True location of Jerusalem Temples right near Gihon Spring (4) True location of Jerusalem Temples right near Gihon Spring Brent Nagtegaal continues: This famed building stood for the next quarter of a century, a constant affront to the Jews as it sat adjacent to the temple. Even after the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes was successful at reclaiming Jerusalem in 165 b.c.e., the Jews still could not take the citadel. Damien Mackey’s comment: The war can be re-dated to the early years of Jesus Christ: Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus (3) Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus Brent Nagtegaal continues: In fact, for the next 20-plus years, long after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes in Babylon, a garrison of Seleucid troops continued to be stationed in the Akra, constantly hounding those visiting the temple grounds. As Flavius Josephus relates in Antiquities of the Jews: [A]nd when he had overthrown the city walls, he built a citadel [Greek: Acra] in the lower part of the city, for the place was high, and overlooked the temple; on which account he fortified it with high walls and towers, and put into it a garrison of Macedonians. However, in that citadel dwelt the impious and wicked part of the multitude from whom it proved that the citizens suffered many and sore calamities. It was only after Simon, the elder brother of Judas, came into power over the new, restored Jewish state in 142 b.c.e., that the Seleucid forces were finally ousted from the Akra a year later. Then, to ensure that foreigners would never again hold captive the religious practice of the Jews, Josephus records that Simon led a three-year, night-and-day effort to destroy the Akra completely, even grinding down part of the ground it rested upon. How could these excavators find evidence of the Akra if Simon destroyed it? …. I shall leave Brent Nagtegaal’s article at this point, with this relevant question hanging, to turn to an important article by Marilyn Sams, who far better understands the geography of Old Jerusalem: (4) Did Excavators Find the Seleucid Citadel in the Givati Parking Lot Did Excavators Find the Seleucid Citadel in the Givati Parking Lot? by Marilyn Sams Since 2007, parts of the Givati parking lot excavation on the southeastern hill of Jerusalem, conducted by Doron Ben-Ami and Yana Tchekhanovets, have been characterized as the remains of Queen Adiabene’s palace and also the Seleucid Acra. Both of these faulty identifications are based on a misunderstanding of and/or lack of attention to literary descriptions which place both of these constructions in the lower city, formerly the City of David, called “Acra,” starting in the Greek period. “Acra” (meaning “citadel” in Greek) stands for both the citadel itself and the area it occupied--the lower city. Josephus and First Maccabees place them both south of the temple, which was in the middle of the southeastern hill, and also verify that Simon Maccabee not only destroyed the citadel, but also the hill on which it stood. Therefore, there were no remains remaining. This paper will set forth the literary evidence evidencing the citadel’s actual location, which was also near the location of Queen Adiabene’s palace. Citadels Preceding the Seleucid Citadel Because the Haram esh-Sharif has been falsely identified as the temple mount, rather than the Roman camp Antonia, claimed by eyewitness Eleazar ben Ya’ir to be the only monument remaining after the 70 A.D. destruction (War VII, 8, 376), there have been eight erroneous proposals for the location of the Israelite and Seleucid citadels. However, they were all in the same location, starting with the Jebusite citadel (called “Millo” in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles), where David resided before building his palace across from it in the newly renamed City of David (Antiquities VII, 3, 65). The northern boundary of this city can be assumed to be the Middle Bronze Age II and Iron Age I walls found in Kathleen Kenyon’s Area H at the bottleneck of the southeastern hill. Hence, the City of David covered roughly the lower half of the southeastern hill. In 3 Kings 2: 35 (Septuagint version), we discover that Solomon expanded this city by breaching its northern wall and adding the “wall of Jerusalem,” a fortification which would then protect the northern half of the southeastern hill and the daughter of Pharoah in the palace he had newly built for her, outside the City of David. The crescent shape of the City of David/Jerusalem (the shape of the southeastern hill) is witnessed by accounts in Josephus, Aristeas, Tacitus, and the Venerable Bede, confining the city to the southeastern hill, with no northerly extension described. It is notable from the Septuagint scripture that Solomon did not breach the City of David’s wall until he had already built the temple and his own palace and rebuilt the citadel. Since the temple was built on Mount Zion at the border between Benjamin and Judah, above En Shemesh (Spring of the Sun--the Gihon Spring), Solomon’s citadel replaced the former Jebusite citadel and acted as a landmark (along with the temple) demarcating the Benjamin/Judah borderline. Hezekiah repaired this citadel (2 Chronicles 32: 5), Nehemiah mentioned it in the Persian period (Nehemiah 7: 2), and Josephus described it during the conquest of Jerusalem by Antiochus the Great (Antiquities XII, 3, 133). Antiochus Epiphanes IV, the son of Antiochus the Great, replaced the citadel of these descriptions with a new one in the same place. The “Lower City,” “Acra,” and the “City of David” As noted by archaeological excavations or the lack thereof, the “city” of the Persian and Greek periods reverted to the southeastern hill only. Therefore, the “lower city” of those periods was the area south of the temple, which edifice Hecateus of Abdera (c. 4th century B.C.) described as occupying the “middle” of the city (Contra Apion I, 22, 198), a location shared by the Gihon Spring (Shiloah), as noted in Hagigah 76a of the Jerusalem Talmud. The Letter of Aristeas also implies the temple’s bifurcation of the city by describing “upper towers” and “lower towers.” …. In Antiquities XII, 5, 252, Josephus recounts Antiochus Epiphanes’ 168 B.C. conquest of Jerusalem, after having overthrown the walls, and his building a citadel in “the lower part of the city:” He also burned down the finest buildings; and when he had overthrown the city walls, he built a citadel [Acra] in the lower part of the city, for the place was high, and overlooked the temple; on which account he fortified it with high walls and towers, and put into it a garrison of Macedonians. (italics and bracketed Greek terms or other information mine, as in all further quotations) The towers and immense stones of the citadel are described by Aristeas and the height of the “place” of the citadel recalls the 3 Kings 2: 35 passage which says Solomon built his citadel “above” the temple, implying the Seleucid citadel replaced the former Solomonic citadel in the same place. The descriptions of the citadels’ location as being “above” and “high” and “overlooking the temple” are factors which have been minimized, ignored, or dismissed in the false locations posited for all the citadels. The literary evidence is clear that the citadels were in a place higher than the temple in the lower city--that part of the city, in both the Israelite era and the Greek era, being limited to the lower half of the southeastern hill. The reason for the height of the citadel being greater than the temple appears to derive from the difference in height between two natural hills, which were likely augmented by occupational tels (because of the spring), dating from 3,000 B.C., with Mount Zion, the hill on which the temple was built, being the lower of the two. Antiochus Epiphane’s destruction of Jerusalem is also set forth in Maccabees 1: 31-36, but in these verses, Acra, or the “lower part of the city” is referred to as the City of David: And when he [Antiochus] had taken the spoils of the city, he set it on fire, and pulled down the houses and walls thereof on every side…Then builded they the city of David with a great and strong wall, and with mighty towers, and made it a strong hold for hem,…For it was a place to lie in wait against the sanctuary, and an evil adversary to Israel. Hence, the citadel built by Antiochus and occupied by his soldiers became a snare to the Jews, rather than a protection to the temple, as had been its previous role. The tide turned, however, when Judas Maccabeus made an assault on the garrison of Macedonians in the “upper city…[and] drove the soldiers into the lower, which part of the city was called the Citadel [Acra]” (War I, 1, 39). Since the city of this period occupied only the southeastern hill, the “upper city” was north of the temple, and the “lower city” was south of the temple and called Acra, because the citadel stood there (just as the area around the citadel called Millo had also been called Millo). It appears from later descriptions that the Macedonian soldiers driven into the lower city were forced to reside in Antiochus Epiphanes’ citadel. Hence, the War passage explains why the Givati parking lot (located in the “upper” area of the southeastern hill) yielded lead sling shots, bronze arrowheads, and catapult stones stamped with Antiochus IV’s symbol, and coins from his era (Fessenden, 2015). The Macedonian soldiers had been there, in the “upper city,” before Judas drove them into the “lower city.” But it was in the lower city, not the upper, where the Seleucid citadel stood. ….