A lot of preterists claim that "Babylon" refers to Jerusalem. Presumably, this argument would apply both to Revelation and 1 Peter. But is there any actual logic behind this idea? What does Babylon symbolize that could actually fit Jerusalem? I don't think you can just say, "Babylon was a bad city, and Jerusalem was a bad city." That is a shallow, childish comparison. I have never heard a preterist actually argue any symbolism.
Here are the two main points of comparison that stand out to me:
1. Babylon was an occupying power. Rome was an occupying power.
2. Babylon destroyed the first temple. Rome destroyed the second temple.
Also, Rome was the pagan inheritor of the kingdom represented by the statue in Daniel 2, which began with Babylon. And the idea that Jerusalem "reigneth over the kings of the earth" (Rev. 17:18) always seemed like a big stretch to me. But for now I would like to focus on any supposed parallels between Jerusalem and Babylon.
Here are the two main points of comparison that stand out to me:
1. Babylon was an occupying power. Rome was an occupying power.
2. Babylon destroyed the first temple. Rome destroyed the second temple.
Also, Rome was the pagan inheritor of the kingdom represented by the statue in Daniel 2, which began with Babylon. And the idea that Jerusalem "reigneth over the kings of the earth" (Rev. 17:18) always seemed like a big stretch to me. But for now I would like to focus on any supposed parallels between Jerusalem and Babylon.
Comment