I wish to point out that this little note has attempted to show how that strict reliance on the scriptures, without going to external sources, will explain to us who the harlot of Revelation is.
There are varying opinions about her identity,
but if you stick to the scriptures alone, and not resort to commentaries written by people persecuted through the centuries by the Catholic Church, for example, you will find that scripture really does speak much of a harlot entity who was at one time faithful.
This harlot refuses to accept the thought that she is a "widow"
Rev 18:7, and expressed her belief that she will not see sorrow. Let us ask ourselves why this harlot would refuse to be called a widow and why she insisted she would see no sorrow. In order to refuse to be called a widow, she was obviously referred to in this manner. And to refuse that she will see sorrow is likewise an indication that she has been told she would indeed see sorrow. And it seems that her sorrow and widowhood are linked.
A widow is one whose husband has died.
Ezekiel 16 refers to a harlot who was worse than harlotry in the normal fashion. As a wife paying lovers to come to her, is this woman a harlot. And judgment was promised to her. And this woman was married to God, as attested to by God's own words in this chapter. When Christ came in the flesh, He was killed by His own. Could this be the information that explains why this harlot in Revelation claims she is no widow and refuses to believe sorrow will come her way?
How can that refer to anything other than Jerusalem?
(1) Jesus accused Jerusalem of the guilt of
Rev 18:24.
(2) Ezekiel calls Jerusalem a harlot time after time in chapter 16, and that entire book parallels Revelation to a "T".
(3) Since Jerusalem was Christ's bride (Ezek 16 again), and she crucified Him while calling Caesar her king instead, we see she is a widow.
(4)
Revelation 18 show her claims she is now widow and sorrow will not come to her. This perfectly fits with the picture of Israel rejecting Christ's words of doom given to her in scripture itself.
(5) Jesus said Jerusalem would "crucify" and slay God's disciples.
Stick to scripture.
Jerusalem was called his bride in the Old Testament. Jerusalem was called an unusual harlot, in the sense of being a wife who paid lovers to lay with her.
quote:
Eze 16:3 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite.
Eze 16:8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.
Eze 16:31-33 In that thou buildest thine eminent place in the head of every way, and makest thine high place in every street; and hast not been as an harlot, in that thou scornest hire; (32) But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband! (33) They give gifts to all whores: but thou givest thy gifts to all thy lovers, and hirest them, that they may come unto thee on every side for thy whoredom.
Eze 16:38 And I will judge thee, as women that break wedlock and shed blood are judged; and I will give thee blood in fury and jealousy.
Now that is scripture.
God marries only one woman at a time. Jerusalem crucified Him, making her a widow. He came to his own, and his own received him not. Death destroys a marriage. Christ then called the church to be his bride. Not just any movement, but the one true church. This church has withstood opposition since the time of her creation from the cross/Pentecost birthing. And she has been the ONLY bride of Christ ever since.
We are not to determine the bride(s) from the claims of movements, but from the claims of God, Himself. There is only ONE BRIDE AT A TIME. And there have EVER been only TWO. Jerusalem and now the New Jerusalem.
The catholic church never was a bride of Christ in God's eyes, as Jerusalem was. How can she be a widow?
God put his name in this city in Jerusalem, which is indicated by the TEMPLE. And now the church is the temple and city.
There has never been a bride for Christ since the church was born and there never will be another one. The city IS ONE and not many.
It went from OLD CITY to NEW CITY. And notice that New Jerusalem Has His name in her as well.
The catholic church is a daughter of ROME 's adultery with Jerusalem. Jerusalem gave the Judaic element we find in the Catholic Church, while Rome gave the pagan element. The Roman Catholic church is a daughter of the whore and not the whore, with the very surname of her Father, "Roman."
Though there is one bride, the whore has many daughters.
Jerusalem was in league with the kings of the earth, scripturally speaking. The kings of the earth were ROMANS at that time. Note who the kings of the earth are called as inspired by the Holy Ghost in the disciples:
Act 4:26-27 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. (27) For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
I am sticking to the book in every reference Revelation makes. And THAT fits too.
So the question is, although many pictures seem to fit, which one fits the most if you stick to scripture alone? The bible explains itself, as highlighted by His Spirit.
Linear Mode
