Compare the Babylonian “Coming” with the Roman “Coming”

by Terry Wane Benton

Both times Jerusalem was destroyed, it was the coming of the Lord through a powerful nation.

When the Babylonians invaded and destroyed Jerusalem in 586 BC, it was the Lord of Hosts (later named Jesus) who came in “glory” (Isaiah 2:12-22). The Lord came in His glory. He came to take “vengeance” (Isaiah 1:24). Thus, the Lord was coming in glory to take vengeance.

There is a comparison in both cases (the Babylonian invasion and the Roman invasion of AD 70) where there is mention of the Jews being His “vineyard” (Isaiah 5:4,7). There is darkness and clouds (Isaiah 5:30) in both invasions. There is “desolate” or “desolation” in both cases (Isaiah 6:11).  Heaviness and sorrow are connected with both. The Lord encamped against them (Isaiah 29:2-3). Yes, the Lord came to encamp against Jerusalem during both invasions. Both cases have “thunder and earthquake and great noise” (Isaiah 29:6).

But the Babylonian “coming” of the Lord was not the “first coming” of the Lord, and therefore, the Roman “coming of the Lord” could not be “the second coming” of the Lord. Those kinds of “comings” are numerous. They do not fit into the two comings that are personal and visible of the “Lord himself.” There are two of those, but numerous times, the Lord came through various armies against Israel, Judah, Egypt, Babylon, etc. Those are each said to be a visit or coming of the Lord, either in wrath against a city or nation or in coming to bless and protect (Isaiah 31:4-5). Those kinds of comings were never in person with a visible form of His presence.

So, when Hebrews 9 speaks of the first and second coming, He is speaking of the first time in the flesh to offer Himself as a sacrifice for our sins, and the second time will also be personal and visible when He takes away to glory in heaven when we see him as he is (I John 3:1-3).

But the judgment on Jerusalem is not the second coming. It is one of many of that kind. Do not be deceived!