Keith,

I read the article with some intrest, but these thoughts occured to
me.

The woman was in heaven. The dragon was in heaven. So wasn't the baby
born in heaven?  It doesn't say he was snatched up to heaven, but to
God and his throne.

It appears the woman goes to earth in 12:6, and the dragon in 12:9.

Could 12:4 be an allusion to Daniel 8:10?

Did the baby drop from heaven to earth?  That's the only way I think
it could represent a rapture of the church.  Or does a baby born in
heaven represent the church?  If it is supposed to be in heaven how
does it represent the rapture?

Alan

Hello Alan,

I think the allusion to Daniel 8 is not a stong one; the horn that comes out
of the broken large horn tramples the hosts, but the dragon in Revelation
doesn't trample on or throw people (hosts) out of heaven.  He MAY have had
1/3 of the angels head over to his side, but that wouldn't qualify as
pertaining to this passage.  Further, the Dragon may have trampled over some
of the angels he fights, but this still wouldn't qualify the interpretation
regarding the baby.  The scene John sees is a SIGN in heaven.  Babies are
obviously not born in heaven; the reality (or literality) of the scene, if
any, has to be on earth's side.

Rev 12:6 doesn't say the woman came to earth at this point, it says she fled
to the desert; she was already on the earth.  (Surely she wouldn't flee from
heaven to earth for safety!)

Further, the baby (who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter) is
caught up to God and His throne, as you noted.  Caught up . . . from heaven
to a throne?  I think we'd be reading more into this than what seems
reasonably clear: the woman surely is Israel; the baby surely the Christ;
the dragon surely Satan; the offspring the disciples of Jesus (Rev 12:17
"Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against
the rest of her offspring--those who obey God's commandments and hold to the
testimony of Jesus.")

Thanks very much for you input, Alan,

Keith R. Starkey

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Keith,

Thanks for your clarification, but I have to disagree with the
location of the woman and the man child.

12:1 says the woman is in heaven.
12:3 says the dragon is in heaven.
12:4 says the dragon is before the woman as she was ready to give
birth.

I don't think we can escape the fact that the man child is born in
heaven.  Heaven is spoken of as God's throne, but in Revelation we
are told that His throne is in heaven (4:2).

I can accept that what John sees is a sign, but if the catching away
of the man child is supposed to represent a literal physcial catching
away of the church, then I would expect the symbolism to show that.
If earth wasn't mentioned at all then perhaps the symbolism would be
consistent.  But since the earth is mentioned, and all the events are
represented in heaven until 12:6 I don't see how the catching away of
the man child could represent a rapture of the type dispensationalism
teaches.

You say:
>> the baby surely the Christ;<<

In saying this you seem to contradict one of the main points of Mr
Svigel.  He says;

>...the preponderance of evidence in favor of the interpretation that
the male child represents not Christ alone, but the body of Christ,
the Church. The "snatching up" of the male child, then, would
be
equated with the catching up of the Church described in 1
Thessalonians 4:17. <

Much of his argument rests on the idea that the man child represents
primarily the church.

>>the woman surely is Israel;<<

Svigel seems to depend a lot on Gen 37:9 for this interpretation.

Exactly what Israel meant isn't clear since Joeseph's mother had
already died (35:19). He may have meant her sister Leah, but
regardless Israel's interpretation wasn't literally fulfilled in the
OT. Only the brothers bowed down later (43:26-28).

So I would say that it is a mistake to interpret the woman as
Israel.  The heavenly Jersalem is identified as the mother of us all
in Galatians 4:26.  Since the new Jerusalem is seen as the bride of
Christ and the offspring of the woman are identified as christian in
Rev 12, I think the symbolism is more in line to show the woman as
the church and the mother of all christians.

Thanks,
Alan

Hello Alan,

ALAN:
I have to disagree with the location of the woman and the man child.

KEITH:
The text says, "Then a great sign appeared in heaven . . . "
This does not say that the woman, the child, or the dragon is in
heaven; the sign--the revelation, the vision--is.  If we suppose
that these three entities are in heaven, are you prepared to believe
that a child was literally born in heaven??  The meaning seems
clear: Israel giving birth to Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus (and
perhaps the church) to the throne of God.

ALAN:
I can accept that what John sees is a sign, but if the catching away
of the man child is supposed to represent a literal physcial
catching away of the church, then I would expect the symbolism to
show that.

KEITH:
The vision IS the symolism.  If there is to be a resurrection of the
body of Christ (the church) one day, but it hasn't happened yet
(except Jesus' resurrection), then the interpretation is
futuristic.  But even if we don't accept the passage to include the
church's resurrection, clearly it must be the resurrection of Jesus,
wouldn't you agree?

ALAN:
If earth wasn't mentioned at all then perhaps the symbolism would be
consistent.  But since the earth is mentioned, and all the events
are
represented in heaven until 12:6 I don't see how the catching away
of the man child could represent a rapture of the type
dispensationalism
teaches.

KEITH:
I can't see how earth being mentioned or not would make any
difference in the general interpretation of the passage; the Man
Child is obviously Christ.  It seems an inescapable conclusion no
matter what perspective one takes of the book of Revelation.

ALAN:
You say (Alan quoting Keith) >> the baby surely the Christ<<
In saying this you seem to contradict one of the main points of Mr
Svigel.

KEITH:
Remember, I am interested in what one thinks about Svigel's notion
that the passage incorporates the body of Christ in the catching up--
I already hold to the Child and the catching away being at least
Christ's resurrection.  I'm merely wanting to find what different
flavor, if any, the passage absorbs if we include the church in the
catching away.  I hold no contradiction to Svigel whether I believe
the church is included or not.

ALAN:
(quoting Keith) ">>the woman surely is Israel;<<"
Svigel seems to depend a lot on Gen 37:9 for this interpretation.
Since the new Jerusalem is seen as the bride of Christ and the
offspring of the woman are identified as christian in Rev 12, I
think the symbolism is more in line to show the woman as the church
and the mother of all christians.

KEITH:
Genesis 37:9 aside, if you were a first-century Christian who had
just been handed the manuscript of the Revelation, and you had no
preconceived ideas about it, because you had not even heard of it
until the time it was given to you, what would be the most obvious
interpretation of the Man Child (not the woman as of yet)?  Wouldn't
you, as a Christian, know automatically this is Jesus the Christ,
the one who will rule all nations with a rod of iron?  That would
seem simple enough to deduce, wouldn't it?

Now the next question would be who is the woman?  You stated the
church is the woman; however, the church--Jesus' called out ones--
wasn't in existence when the Man Child was born, and the heavenly
Jerusalem wasn't mentioned because it wasn't a part of the birthing
of the Christ. (The church birthed the groom?  That doesn't sound
correct?!)  The only folk left are Mary and Israel.  Well, Mary
didn't flee into the wilderness for 3 1/2 years (maybe she did, and
I'm not up on the documentation for that!).  But we do have that
corresponding verse in John 1:11 with it's well-known subtelty: "He
came to what was his own, but his own people did not receive him27"
(NET).  Foot note 27of the New English Translation states the
following:

"His own people did not receive him. There is a subtle irony here:
when the lovgo" (logos) came into the world, he came to his own (taV
i[dia, ta idia, literally "his own things") and his own
people (oiJ i
[dioi, Joi idioi), who should have known and received him, but they
did not. This time John does not say that "his own" did not
know
him, but that they did not receive him (parevlabon, parelabon). The
idea is one not of mere recognition, but of acceptance and welcome."

I have to conclude, therefore, that Israel, Jesus' people, birthed
Jesus.

Thanks again, Alan,

Keith

Hi Keith,

I am prepared to accept that in the vision the woman, dragon, and
birth are in heaven because that's what the vision says.  Of course
that doesn't mean I think that those things literally happen in
heaven because it is a vision, not a literal narrative.  The idea
that the woman represents Israel is not at all clear to me.  Neither
is the representation of Christ as the man child or the
dispensational rapture clear to me.

The dispensational rapture is supposed to be a resurrection in which
believers meet Christ and are caught away into heaven.  If that is
the depiction in Revelation 12 I would expect those basic elements to
be shown.  In fact, both earth and heaven play key roles in the
vision.  The dragon is expelled from heaven and comes down to earth.
Since the earth is a basic element in the vision why isn't the
resurrection of the church, or for that matter Jesus shown coming
from the earth?  Yes it's a vision, but if it supposed to show
someone going from earth to heaven it shouldn't show them originating
in heaven while others travel from heaven to earth.  That seems
entirely inconsistent to me.

Although the man child is often interpreted as Christ I'm not sure
that is the correct interpretation.  The vision is supposed to be a
prophecy and Jesus had already been resurrected.  Svigel believes the
church is the primary representation, and Rev 2:26,27 shows that the
overcomers share the rod of iron.  If I were a first century
Christian I think I would take note that this was supposed to be a
prophecy, and the man child was born in heaven.

Israel did not receive Jesus.  Did the woman in the vision reject
Jesus?  Was He snatched into heaven to save Him from the devil?  Was
that the purpose of Jesus' resurrection?

The only thing I can think of that would identify Jesus as the man
child is Psalms 2:8,9.  Svigel has made a convincing argument that
this could also be the church.

The earth swallows up the flood, as if it were diverted into a great
pit. The remnant of her seed are identified as christians. So who is
the mother of christians?



Thanks,
Alan

Greetings Alan,

>The idea that the woman represents Israel is not at all clear to me.
> >Neither is the representation of Christ as the man child or the
>dispensational rapture clear to me.

The woman?  Okay, we can let that go for the time being.  But who, then,
would you say is the Man Child?  And finally, I'm not all that hyped up,
myself, on a dispensational rapture either.  Of all the items in prophecy,
that one is the least of my concerns, except, if for any reason, I find in
it something revealing the heart and character of God.  Otherwise, we'll all
get to heaven one way or another!


>The dispensational rapture is supposed to be a resurrection in which
>believers meet Christ and are caught away into heaven.  If that is
>the depiction in Revelation 12 I would expect those basic elements to
>be shown.

I tend to agree with you here, Alan.  It's rather vague and demanding; to
have to "figure it out" is troublesome to the interpretation.


>In fact, both earth and heaven play key roles in the
>vision.  The dragon is expelled from heaven and comes down to earth.
>Since the earth is a basic element in the vision why isn't the
>resurrection of the church, or for that matter Jesus shown coming
>from the earth?  Yes it's a vision, but if it supposed to show
>someone going from earth to heaven it shouldn't show them originating
>in heaven while others travel from heaven to earth.  That seems
>entirely inconsistent to me.

Okay, I see where you're coming from.  I would note, however, that the
dragon is cast to the earth after the event of the catching up of the Man
Child, unless one interprets the casting down of Satan as parenthetical.
(Too, at this point, I'm not finding much to flavor the text by trying to
interpret the "catching up" as encompassing both Christ and His body.)


>Svigel believes the church is the primary representation, and Rev >2:26,27
>shows that the
>overcomers share the rod of iron.  If I were a first century
>Christian I think I would take note that this was supposed to be a
>prophecy, and the man child was born in heaven.

Now I'm getting confused.  Can you be specific: who is the Man Child, and
what do you mean by he was "born in heaven" if you don't believe this is
literal?


>Israel did not receive Jesus.  Did the woman in the vision reject
>Jesus?

Her rejecting Jesus is immaterial because she will eventually (in this time
period) accept the Child as the Messiah: All Israel will be saved (Romans
11).


>Was He snatched into heaven to save Him from the devil?  Was
>that the purpose of Jesus' resurrection?

Well, personally, I don't think think the dragon presented much of a threat
to the Man Child (or the Church).  He is, however, quite a threat to the
woman (Israel?), and that's the emphasis of his wrath.


>
>The only thing I can think of that would identify Jesus as the man
>child is Psalms 2:8,9.  Svigel has made a convincing argument that
>this could also be the church.

Who else or what else would you say the Child might be if it's not Jesus?

>The earth swallows up the flood, as if it were diverted into a great
>pit. The remnant of her seed are identified as christians. So who is
>the mother of christians?

I'm still putting my chips on Israel as the woman.  Time will tell!

Hey, thanks Alan,

Keith

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:53:50 -0000 "Alan Fuller <rocsy@...>"
<rocsy@...> writes:

> Although the man child is often interpreted as Christ I'm not sure
> that is the correct interpretation.  The vision is supposed to be a
>
> prophecy and Jesus had already been resurrected.  Svigel believes
> the
> church is the primary representation, and Rev 2:26,27 shows that the
>
> overcomers share the rod of iron.  If I were a first century
> Christian I think I would take note that this was supposed to be a
> prophecy, and the man child was born in heaven.
>

and

> The only thing I can think of that would identify Jesus as the man
> child is Psalms 2:8,9.  Svigel has made a convincing argument that
> this could also be the church.
>

Psalm 2:8-9 shows up in one other place in Revelation--19:15.  This is
the vision of the rider on a white horse, a rider who (by all
appearances, at any rate) seems to be Jesus.   Curious, no?

Leo Percer
Waco, TX

(My dissertation--"The War in Heaven--Michael and Messiah in Revelation
12"--looks at this issue in a little more depth.  I am beginning to think
an article or book on Psalm 2:8-9 is also needed.  Any takers?)

________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com

Greetings from Costa Rica!

I have several questions about Victorinus' commentary on Revelation.  Since
my resources here in Central America are limited, I will appreciate
immensely any help anyone can send on to me!

1) Is Victorinus' commentary available on-line in English, Spanish, German
or Latin (Migne?)"?  A good translation would be the most helpful.

2) My immediate interest is the following quotation attributed to
Victorinus:

"Seven angels having the last seven plagues, for in them is completed the
indignation of God. And these shall be in the last time when the church
shall have gone out of the midst."

2a) can anyone tell me chapter and verse for the quote (I assume it is from
the commentary)?

2b) What is the context of the statement?  Does the context indicate that
Victorinus is teaching a pre-tribulation rapture?

Anyone who can help me will have earned at least one extra star in his/her
crown in heaven!

thanks and best wishes

Juan

le 10/01/03 5:01, Juan Stam à jstam@... a écrit :

>
> Greetings from Costa Rica!
>
> I have several questions about Victorinus' commentary on Revelation.  Since
> my resources here in Central America are limited, I will appreciate
> immensely any help anyone can send on to me!
>
> 1) Is Victorinus' commentary available on-line in English, Spanish, German
> or Latin (Migne?)"?  A good translation would be the most helpful.
>
> 2) My immediate interest is the following quotation attributed to
> Victorinus:
>
> "Seven angels having the last seven plagues, for in them is completed the
> indignation of God. And these shall be in the last time when the church
> shall have gone out of the midst."
>
> 2a) can anyone tell me chapter and verse for the quote (I assume it is from
> the commentary)?
>
> 2b) What is the context of the statement?  Does the context indicate that
> Victorinus is teaching a pre-tribulation rapture?
>
> Anyone who can help me will have earned at least one extra star in his/her
> crown in heaven!
>
> thanks and best wishes
>
> Juan
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Hi Juan,

I easily found the passage of Victorinus you are looking for in the edition
of Victorinus commentary published in the "Sources chrétiennes" collection.
Here is the Latin text:

"Eamdem repetens persecutionem dicit Apocalypsis: Angelos septem habentes
plagas quoniam in his finita est ira Dei. Semper enim ira Dei percutit
populum contumacem septem plagis, id est perfecte, ut in Leuitico dicit,
quae in ultimo futura sunt, cum ecclesia de medio exierit."

(See: Victorin de Poetevio, "Sur l'Apocalypse et autres écrits", Sources
chrétiennes No. 423, Cerf, Paris, 1997, p. 112. This edition gives also a
French translation of the Latin text).

Now this is the only commentary Victorinus has about Revelation 15, which is
quite short, obviously. The next paragraph goes directly to Revelation 19!

Best wishes,

Alain M. de Lassus

Your archives reveal that the Apocalypse by Jacques Ellul (1978) has not
been referenced in your discussions. While this book is a nuisance to search
(no index), his thesis is that the book of the Apocalypse reveals the
meaning of the incarnation, life, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus.

He identifies for instance, the woes, as the suffering of Christ (page 73):
"all that happens to humanity is concentrated in fact upon his [Jesus]
person. Thus we must never read the plagues and judgments of the Apocalypse
outside of the perspective of perfect, absolute, unbreakable association
between Christ and men..."

The man-child and the woman are in the centre of the third woe, which is
itself the centre of the keystone of the book (8:1 to 14:5) - the midsection
of the 5 sections. Ellul considers this the unfolding of the mystery of the
incarnation (pp 83-84) in heaven since its full understanding is invisible
on earth - (too few words for summarizing these two pages).

He considers the woman as having a plurality of meanings: Eve, (12:9), Zion
and Israel who engender the Messiah and the believers; Mary in "celestial
reduplication", but not the Church who does not give birth to the child but
who derives from him.  Finally, he writes: "we must not forget that the
Incarnation is the total union of the whole of man with the whole of God. In
this perspective, the woman appears to me to be the image of the entire
creation (of earth and heaven) in some way synthesized to produce the fruit
of the most decisively intimate covenant of God with his creation."

The dragon must prevent the Incarnation - if the latter comes to pass, all
is lost. So the fury that is unleashed at the Incarnation (12:2-5). So (my
conjecture) the immediacy of the ascent of the child. In wrestling with this
colourful imagery and refusing deliberately to take the Apocalypse as a map
of the 'future', I think Ellul helps us see the celebration of the non-power
power of God as revealed. The child (Jesus) is taken up to heaven (not I
think away from the earth but in the bosom of the Father) from which the 3.5
year (12:14) ministry proceeds. The woman is protected in the desert and by
the earth from all that the dragons and beasts can imagine or deliver.

This is long enough as a sampler - are there other commentators who have
taken this thesis more recently than 1978? Ellul seems rarely quoted
(Craigie, The Problem of War in the Old Testament 1972, Nanos, Mystery of
Romans 1996). I wonder if others specifically studying Revelation had used
his work.

Bob

mailto::BobMacDonald@...
+ + + Victoria, B.C., Canada + + +

Catch the foxes for us,
    the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
for our vineyards are in flower.   (Song 2.15)
http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca

I seems to me that this objection overlooks one thing. The Apocalypse is not
just a prophecy of "things to come" but is a review of things that had been,
and there were present (1:19). Thus, the vision of chapter 12 certainly
could, it seems to me, be a review of the past, a vision of the present, and
a foretaste of the immediate future as well.
Don K

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo R Percer" <PercerL@...>
To: <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: [revelation-list] Re: Continuing the Man Child and the woman


>
> On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:53:50 -0000 "Alan Fuller <rocsy@...>"
> <rocsy@...> writes:
>
> > Although the man child is often interpreted as Christ I'm not sure
> > that is the correct interpretation.  The vision is supposed to be a
> >
> > prophecy and Jesus had already been resurrected.  Svigel believes
> > the
> > church is the primary representation, and Rev 2:26,27 shows that the
> >
> > overcomers share the rod of iron.  If I were a first century
> > Christian I think I would take note that this was supposed to be a
> > prophecy, and the man child was born in heaven.
> >
>
> and
>
> > The only thing I can think of that would identify Jesus as the man
> > child is Psalms 2:8,9.  Svigel has made a convincing argument that
> > this could also be the church.
> >
>
> Psalm 2:8-9 shows up in one other place in Revelation--19:15.  This is
> the vision of the rider on a white horse, a rider who (by all
> appearances, at any rate) seems to be Jesus.   Curious, no?
>
> Leo Percer
> Waco, TX
>
> (My dissertation--"The War in Heaven--Michael and Messiah in Revelation
> 12"--looks at this issue in a little more depth.  I am beginning to think
> an article or book on Psalm 2:8-9 is also needed.  Any takers?)
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
> Only $9.95 per month!
> Visit www.juno.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

I began reading Ellul with great expectations, but was largely disappointed.
for several reasons:

1) Ellul's complicated arguments were hard for me to follow, which makes me
think that first-century common readers ("Joe Doe of Ephesus", Mrs
Everywoman of Smyrna) would have had even more trouble understanding
Revelation if it had such involuted significance.  I believe "John" was a
pastor, as well as a prophet, and wrote for flesh-and-blood people whom he
knew.  (In this, he differs from most other apocalyptic authors).  From the
stand-point of rhetorical criticism and reader-response, I find it hard to
believe John's meaning was so complicated.

2) Specifically, I have doubts about the concentric structure of Revelation
proposed by Ellul and others (Fiorenza, and my friends and colleagues, Pablo
Richard & Ricardo Foulkes).  I know that chiasmus was an important element
of some ancient mental structure, and that some/many passages (and perhaps
some books of the Bible) are concentric, but the evidences of concentricity
for Revelation as a whole seem largely speculative to me, hence authors
disagree on the concentric structures they propose. Concentricity produces a
structure or logic of the book which, it seems to me, the original hearers
would have missed (especially since they had no written copies to turn to
for more carfeful analysis).  John seems to me to be a very reader-sensitive
author, and I doubt that he would have confused his recipients with so
complicated a scheme.

I have tried to look around in the vast apocalyptic literature
(Charlesworth, Díez Macho, etc) for other apocaluyptic works whose over-all
strucutre is concentric, and have not been able to find any.  Can someone
point to such parallels?

3) Although Ellul's commentary includes some brilliant passages (which I
quote in my own commentary), too many of his specific interpretations seems
speculative to me.  To me, he seems to impose his pre-supposed scheme on the
text rather than let the text speak for itself.

Perhaps something along the way just prejudiced me against this commentary,
but I throw out these remarks to see what others think.

muchas gracias!!

Juan Stam (Universidad Nacional, Costa Rica)

DON:
Thus, the vision of chapter 12 certainly
could, it seems to me, be a review of the past, a vision of the present, and
a foretaste of the immediate future as well.


KEITH:
I am in COMPLETE agreement with this statement.  We just weren't working
from that perspective.  It was Svigel's interpretation of the "catching up"
being the issue of including or not including the entire body of Christ, not
just resurrection of Jesus.

Great comment, though, Don,

Keith



_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

Hi Juan,

The notice that the church has "gone out of the midst" (de medio) would not
have to imply a pre-tribulation rapture as modern dispensationalists
understand it. It could arise simply out of Victorinus' "reader response" to
the immediately-preceding 15:1-4, in which "those who were victorious over
the beast" are seen with harps beside the "sea of glass." Who else but the
church? And where else but in heaven? Also, this is "in ultimo futura" and
the plagues are "last" even in relation to previous plagues. This is not the
beginning of "the tribulation" but well into it, maybe even the end of it.

Having said that, I have to admit that the phrase "de medio" (presumably
from the Greek ek mesou) is interesting, matching exactly the Vulgate of 2
Thess 2:7, which as you may know, is interpreted in some esoteric versions
of dispensationalism as referring to the pretribulation rapture.

I'll be interested to hear what you come up with.

All the best,

Ramsey Michaels

----- Original Message -----
From: "P. Alain-Marie de Lassus" <alain.m.delassus@...>
To: "Revelation List" <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 2:13 AM
Subject: Re: [revelation-list] Victorinus of Pettau and Rapture


le 10/01/03 5:01, Juan Stam à jstam@... a écrit :

>
> Greetings from Costa Rica!
>
> I have several questions about Victorinus' commentary on Revelation.
Since
> my resources here in Central America are limited, I will appreciate
> immensely any help anyone can send on to me!
>
> 1) Is Victorinus' commentary available on-line in English, Spanish, German
> or Latin (Migne?)"?  A good translation would be the most helpful.
>
> 2) My immediate interest is the following quotation attributed to
> Victorinus:
>
> "Seven angels having the last seven plagues, for in them is completed the
> indignation of God. And these shall be in the last time when the church
> shall have gone out of the midst."
>
> 2a) can anyone tell me chapter and verse for the quote (I assume it is
from
> the commentary)?
>
> 2b) What is the context of the statement?  Does the context indicate that
> Victorinus is teaching a pre-tribulation rapture?
>
> Anyone who can help me will have earned at least one extra star in his/her
> crown in heaven!
>
> thanks and best wishes
>
> Juan
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Hi Juan,

I easily found the passage of Victorinus you are looking for in the edition
of Victorinus commentary published in the "Sources chrétiennes" collection.
Here is the Latin text:

"Eamdem repetens persecutionem dicit Apocalypsis: Angelos septem habentes
plagas quoniam in his finita est ira Dei. Semper enim ira Dei percutit
populum contumacem septem plagis, id est perfecte, ut in Leuitico dicit,
quae in ultimo futura sunt, cum ecclesia de medio exierit."

(See: Victorin de Poetevio, "Sur l'Apocalypse et autres écrits", Sources
chrétiennes No. 423, Cerf, Paris, 1997, p. 112. This edition gives also a
French translation of the Latin text).

Now this is the only commentary Victorinus has about Revelation 15, which is
quite short, obviously. The next paragraph goes directly to Revelation 19!

Best wishes,

Alain M. de Lassus


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hi Keith,

>>Who else or what else would you say the Child might be if it's not
Jesus?<<

Sviegel says it is primarily the body of Christ, meaning the church.
That is more in line with my thinking, although I don't see the
snatching away as a rapture.  As the 17th century commentator Matthew
Henry puts it;

>Having on her head a crown of twelve stars; the doctrine of the
gospel, preached by the twelve apostles, is a crown of glory to all
true believers. As in pain to bring forth a holy family; desirous
that the conviction of sinners might end in their conversion. <

The heavenly Jerusalem is mother to those of the spirit whom the
dragon wishes to devour (1 Pet 5:8).  The  spirit of God gives power
over the dragons temptations.  The catching away to God is the power
the overcomer has been given to resist the wiley predator (Rev 2:26,
17:14).

The mother is the doctrine of the church that gives faith, and the
spirit is the man child that is given protection by the Father.
That's an idealistic interpretation that I prefer.


Thanks for asking,

Alan

Don,

In 1:19 John is instructed to what he has seen, what he sees,
and the following things he will see.

It is popular to use this verse to divide the book
into three parts.

Rev 1:11-20 The things John has
seen perhaps representing events in John's
past.
Rev 2:1-3:22 The things that are, representing the
first century churches with which John was familiar
and, current events for John.
Rev 4:1-22:21 The things that shall be, events future to John.

In my opinion, too much importance is attached to this
verse. It is simply an instruction to John to write
everything he sees in the vision, and it is not a good method
to use to divide the book of Revelation.

Why should it be about past history, or events current to its
writing?
In Revelation 9:12 it says that some of the woes are past, yet most
of us don't try to say the events described previous
to 9:12 are in John's past.

Also there is no special emphasis
given to the verse as in the next verse, 1:20.
Shouldn't 1:19 be viewed more like 9:12?

Thanks,
Alan

on 1/10/03 7:41 AM  Ramsey Michaels wrote:

> Having said that, I have to admit that the phrase "de medio" (presumably
> from the Greek ek mesou) is interesting . . .

Professor Michaels and Juan,

Take a look at how de medio is used here.

Matt. 13:49 sic erit in consummatione saeculi exibunt angeli et separabunt
malos de medio iustorum

MATT. 13:49 hOUTWS ESTAI EN THi SUNTELEIAi TOU AIWNOS: EXELEUSONTAI hOI
AGGELOI KAI AFORIOUSIN TOUS PONHROUS EK MESOU TWN DIKAIWN

greetings, Clay


--
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

The thematic symbolism of the woman and her child  here is too strong to
reduce to a singular reference. Of course I come from the standpoint that
the Bible is a coherent and complete document plotting the Godhead's plan of
human redemption through the Messiah. The imagery of the woman is so
highlihted in this passage in association with a Christ figure that I
beleive on needs to look to first reference.
From: Alan Fuller <rocsy@...> [mailto:rocsy@...]
Sent: 09 January 2003 06:54
To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Continuing the Man Child and the woman


Hi Keith,

I am prepared to accept that in the vision the woman, dragon, and
birth are in heaven because that's what the vision says.  Of course
that doesn't mean I think that those things literally happen in
heaven because it is a vision, not a literal narrative.  The idea
that the woman represents Israel is not at all clear to me.  Neither
is the representation of Christ as the man child or the
dispensational rapture clear to me.

The dispensational rapture is supposed to be a resurrection in which
believers meet Christ and are caught away into heaven.  If that is
the depiction in Revelation 12 I would expect those basic elements to
be shown.  In fact, both earth and heaven play key roles in the
vision.  The dragon is expelled from heaven and comes down to earth.
Since the earth is a basic element in the vision why isn't the
resurrection of the church, or for that matter Jesus shown coming
from the earth?  Yes it's a vision, but if it supposed to show
someone going from earth to heaven it shouldn't show them originating
in heaven while others travel from heaven to earth.  That seems
entirely inconsistent to me.

Although the man child is often interpreted as Christ I'm not sure
that is the correct interpretation.  The vision is supposed to be a
prophecy and Jesus had already been resurrected.  Svigel believes the
church is the primary representation, and Rev 2:26,27 shows that the
overcomers share the rod of iron.  If I were a first century
Christian I think I would take note that this was supposed to be a
prophecy, and the man child was born in heaven.

Israel did not receive Jesus.  Did the woman in the vision reject
Jesus?  Was He snatched into heaven to save Him from the devil?  Was
that the purpose of Jesus' resurrection?

The only thing I can think of that would identify Jesus as the man
child is Psalms 2:8,9.  Svigel has made a convincing argument that
this could also be the church.

The earth swallows up the flood, as if it were diverted into a great
pit. The remnant of her seed are identified as christians. So who is
the mother of christians?



Thanks,
Alan



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Apologies for this last mail . . .it went off accidentally. The imagery of
this woman in labour seems to trigger thoughts of Genesis 3v15. Here the
first reference to the holy war or two seeds begins and for me is continuous
throughout the Old and New Testament. It fits in with the imagery of a
conquering warrior/Christ. This passage is a recapitulation of the history
of God's plan for the souls of man and the ensuing struggle against the
enemy the dragon-serpent Satan. The idea of a struggling woman carrying the
seed of righteousness through the generations comes forth in figures such as
Rachel and Mary whose lives mirror this archetypical struggle. Time and time
again the idea of a an evil enemy whose head is ultimately to be crushed
comes through in this struggle. The women here is the Old Testament church,
if you want to call her Israel then so be it, who gives birth to the
Messiah. It is a labour or outworking made over many generations and the
birth pangs had been felt for many centuries.

The imagery of the woman gives some clues as to her identity. The sun and
moon and stars reminiscent of Joseph's dream where the mother and father and
brothers were symbolised. Stars are symbolic not only of power and
government but here directly of the 12 tribes of Israel . . . the OT Church.
Joseph's parentage is highlighted as a remberance of the first parents, Adam
and Eve, and an allusion agin to the seedbed of the struggle found in
Genesis. I have more, but will give more direct and precise responses later.

Jason Coates
Johannesburg

-----Original Message-----
From: coates [mailto:jasonnola@...]
Sent: 11 January 2003 04:22
To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [revelation-list] Re: Continuing the Man Child and the
woman


The thematic symbolism of the woman and her child  here is too strong to
reduce to a singular reference. Of course I come from the standpoint that
the Bible is a coherent and complete document plotting the Godhead's plan of
human redemption through the Messiah. The imagery of the woman is so
highlihted in this passage in association with a Christ figure that I
beleive on needs to look to first reference.
From: Alan Fuller <rocsy@...> [mailto:rocsy@...]
Sent: 09 January 2003 06:54
To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Continuing the Man Child and the woman


Hi Keith,

I am prepared to accept that in the vision the woman, dragon, and
birth are in heaven because that's what the vision says.  Of course
that doesn't mean I think that those things literally happen in
heaven because it is a vision, not a literal narrative.  The idea
that the woman represents Israel is not at all clear to me.  Neither
is the representation of Christ as the man child or the
dispensational rapture clear to me.

The dispensational rapture is supposed to be a resurrection in which
believers meet Christ and are caught away into heaven.  If that is
the depiction in Revelation 12 I would expect those basic elements to
be shown.  In fact, both earth and heaven play key roles in the
vision.  The dragon is expelled from heaven and comes down to earth.
Since the earth is a basic element in the vision why isn't the
resurrection of the church, or for that matter Jesus shown coming
from the earth?  Yes it's a vision, but if it supposed to show
someone going from earth to heaven it shouldn't show them originating
in heaven while others travel from heaven to earth.  That seems
entirely inconsistent to me.

Although the man child is often interpreted as Christ I'm not sure
that is the correct interpretation.  The vision is supposed to be a
prophecy and Jesus had already been resurrected.  Svigel believes the
church is the primary representation, and Rev 2:26,27 shows that the
overcomers share the rod of iron.  If I were a first century
Christian I think I would take note that this was supposed to be a
prophecy, and the man child was born in heaven.

Israel did not receive Jesus.  Did the woman in the vision reject
Jesus?  Was He snatched into heaven to save Him from the devil?  Was
that the purpose of Jesus' resurrection?

The only thing I can think of that would identify Jesus as the man
child is Psalms 2:8,9.  Svigel has made a convincing argument that
this could also be the church.

The earth swallows up the flood, as if it were diverted into a great
pit. The remnant of her seed are identified as christians. So who is
the mother of christians?



Thanks,
Alan



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

My deep gratitude to Alain-Marie de Lassus, Ramsey Michaels and Clay
Bartholomew for their valuable help on Victorinus.  Looking at other
passages in Victorinus (thanks to Clay), I find no evidence that he could
have been thinking of a pre-tribulation rapture to rescue the saints prior
to the Antichrist. Rather, I suspect Victorinus refers back to the flight of
the woman (persecuted Church) in 12.6,14. His comment on 12.6 emphasizes
withdrawal or removal: "I saw that all men withdrew from his abodes] That
is, the good will be removed, flying from persecution. But the woman fled
into the wilderness" (he then  cites Lc 21.21, flee to mountains). This
hardly fits the rapture. It would be interesting to see what latin verbs
Victorinus uses for "withdraw" and "be removed" (similar to " exierit" in
comment on 15.1?)



      He continues to explain 12:6,14 as being gathered together in Judea and
then "go to that place which they have ready" to be nourished three years
and six months from the presence of the devil. On 12.16 he again says she
"flees from the face of the serpent". All this seems to explain the original
quote better than any supposed reference to a pre-trib rapture.



Dispensationalist TV-evangelist Jack van Impe (from whom I got the
Victorinus quote) also appeals to Ephraem the Syrian for support, but fails
to mention that the famous quote is not from Ephraem at all but from
pseudo-Ephraem.



Van Impe also cites ambiguous phrases from Hugo Latimer and Joseph Mede,
which don't come close to being any clear statement of a
dispensationalist-style pre-Trib rapture. Can anyone comment on the
eschatology of these two authors?



Also, can anyone tell me how to access the commentary on Rev by Andrew
(Andreas) of Cesarea?



Many thanks!!



Juan Stam (Costa Rica)

JASON:
"The idea of a struggling woman carrying the seed of righteousness through
the generations comes forth in figures such as Rachel and Mary whose lives
mirror this archetypical struggle. Time and time
again the idea of a an evil enemy whose head is ultimately to be crushed
comes through in this struggle."

KEITH:
Ultimately, however, what's the point of the passage?  I think he had
something more specific in mind than the vagueness you've described, though
I like the theology.


JASON:
"The women here is the Old Testament church,
if you want to call her Israel then so be it, who gives birth to the
Messiah. It is a labour or outworking made over many generations and the
birth pangs had been felt for many centuries.

The imagery of the woman gives some clues as to her identity. The sun and
moon and stars reminiscent of Joseph's dream where the mother and father and
brothers were symbolised. Stars are symbolic not only of power and
government but here directly of the 12 tribes of Israel . . . the OT Church.
Joseph's parentage is highlighted as a remberance of the first parents, Adam
and Eve, and an allusion agin to the seedbed of the struggle found in
Genesis.

KEITH:
Here again, what is it that John is ultimately saying?  It's not enough to
merely recap Joseph's vision; John was going somewhere with it, somewhere
very relative reason why he was given the visions in the first place.

I can't help but see the clarity of coming to terms with the language you've
used (good, by all means): Israel births the Christ (the Man Child).  The
child is taken back to heaven, and Satan continues to make war on the
remnant; in this case the church, ultimately to include Israel.  It seems
simple enough, I believe.

Thanks,

Keith R. Starkey

Keith R. Starkey

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

> Van Impe also cites ambiguous phrases from Hugo Latimer and
> Joseph Mede, which don't come close to being any clear
> statement of a dispensationalist-style pre-Trib rapture. Can
> anyone comment on the eschatology of these two authors?

I can comment on Mede.  He is a proto- premillenialist, in that Christ
returns at the end of the conflgation at the end the AC's rule,
establishes the kingdom, then ruls that kingdom from heaven. The obvious
difference from the modern form of pre-mil that Dispensationalism
represents is that Christ is not present on earth during the kingdom.

What Mede teaches concerning the rapture is that there will be a
"pre-conflagration" catching away of the church prior to the second
coming, but he does not flesh this out in any way, and is really not a
pre-trib rapture as VanImpe would teach.  Again, I'd call it
"proto-pre-trib" if I had to. Mede discusses this pre-conflgration
rapture in his commentary on 2 Peter, using the story of Noah as a text.
Really it is a mention of a pre-conflagration rapture, and far from a
discussion.


Phillip J. Long
Associate Professor of Bible
Grace Bible College
Grand Rapids, MI

Juan Stam <jstam@u...> wrote:
>
> I began reading Ellul with great expectations, but was largely
disappointed.
> for several reasons:
>
> 1) Ellul's complicated arguments were hard for me to follow, which
makes me . . . I find it hard to
> believe John's meaning was so complicated.
>
> 2) Specifically, I have doubts about the concentric structure of
Revelation
> proposed by Ellul and others (Fiorenza, and my friends and
colleagues, Pablo
> Richard & Ricardo Foulkes).  I know that chiasmus was an important
element
> of some ancient mental structure, and that some/many passages (and
perhaps
> some books of the Bible) are concentric, but the evidences of
concentricity
> for Revelation as a whole seem largely speculative to me, hence
authors
> disagree on the concentric structures they propose.

I agree that chiasmus arguments of complicated structures are hard
to follow.  I tried to find a good working definition of chiasmus
that I could use to analyse the various arguments without success.
Most of the definition I have seen have been definition by example
such as "This may involve a repetition of the same words
('Pleasure's a sin, and sometimes sin's a pleasure' --Byron)"

Any suggestions for a good working definition of chiasmus?

Richard H. Anderson

Of course, the term comes from the Greek letter Chi, and refers to a
structure of A1 - B1 - B2  -A2 (inverted, like the points of a Chi).  A good
example is Phil 2:6:

A1 "being in the form of God"
B1 "did not consider equality an usurpation"
B2 "but emptied himself" (vs usurp)
A2 "and took the form of a servant"

Here A2 clearly pairs with A1 ("form" both times), on the outside of the
chiasmus, and B2 with B1 on the inside (as corresponding negative and
positive pair).

(I'm using the English to avoid transliteration complications from the
Greek)

When the same struggle is applied to large documents, it is usually called
concentric, & the key to the message is located in the very center (ej Rev
12 for book of Rev)

Hope this helps,

Juan Stam (Costa Rica)

While he likes the phrase "concentric pattern" for both types, Charles
Talbert (Reading John, especially bottom of page 124) distinguishes
"chiasms" into two types, an odd-numbered pattern (ABA or ABCBA), which
is accurately called chiasm, and an even-numbered pattern (ABBA or
ABCCBA) which is correctly called an epanados. The chiasm, with a single
element in the center, highlights that center as the key to the passage
or the book.  The epanados, on the other hand, places the emphasis at
the edges.

If one reads Revelation as a chiasm (as Fiorenza essentially does) the
emphasis would be somewhere in chapters 12-14. If one reads it as an
epanados (as Strand does, although he calls it a chiasm), the emphasis
rightly comes at the edges, the prologue and the epilogue. Of the two
options, I prefer that of Fiorenza.

One does not need to succumb to the argument that all chiasms are
inventions of the interpreter, it seems to me that ABA thinking was as
natural to the Hebrew mindset as ABC thinking is to ours. Just as an
interpreter seeing a 27-point chiasm in this message is indulging in
fantasy, I suggest that any genuine chiasm in Revelation will be natural
to the author's thought process and will tend to be relatively simple
(perhaps seven-point at times?). It seems to me that Talbert illustrates
a responsible use of chiasm in his book Reading John.

I address these issues briefly in my popular commentary on John.

Jon Paulien, Chair
New Testament Department
Andrews University
jonp@...


-----Original Message-----
From: juanstam@... [mailto:juanstam@...] On Behalf Of
Juan Stam
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 10:03 AM
To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [revelation-list] Re: chiasmus


Of course, the term comes from the Greek letter Chi, and refers to a
structure of A1 - B1 - B2  -A2 (inverted, like the points of a Chi).  A
good
example is Phil 2:6:

A1 "being in the form of God"
B1 "did not consider equality an usurpation"
B2 "but emptied himself" (vs usurp)
A2 "and took the form of a servant"

Here A2 clearly pairs with A1 ("form" both times), on the outside of the
chiasmus, and B2 with B1 on the inside (as corresponding negative and
positive pair).

(I'm using the English to avoid transliteration complications from the
Greek)

When the same struggle is applied to large documents, it is usually
called
concentric, & the key to the message is located in the very center (ej
Rev
12 for book of Rev)

Hope this helps,

Juan Stam (Costa Rica)



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

I agree with John Paulien that ABA thinking was natural to the Hebrew
mindset (perhaps like puns or alliteration in modern mindset) but my doubts
arrive when concentric patterns are imposed on entire books, like
Revelation.

To corroborate or refute these concentricity proposals, I have looked a bit
for other apocalyptic literature that might have a concentric pattern, but I
have found none.  Does anyone know of examples in apocalyptic literare?

Juan Stam



----- Original Message -----
From: "jonp" <jonp@...>
To: <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 2:29 PM
Subject: RE: [revelation-list] Re: chiasmus


> While he likes the phrase "concentric pattern" for both types, Charles
> Talbert (Reading John, especially bottom of page 124) distinguishes
> "chiasms" into two types, an odd-numbered pattern (ABA or ABCBA), which
> is accurately called chiasm, and an even-numbered pattern (ABBA or
> ABCCBA) which is correctly called an epanados. The chiasm, with a single
> element in the center, highlights that center as the key to the passage
> or the book.  The epanados, on the other hand, places the emphasis at
> the edges.
>
> If one reads Revelation as a chiasm (as Fiorenza essentially does) the
> emphasis would be somewhere in chapters 12-14. If one reads it as an
> epanados (as Strand does, although he calls it a chiasm), the emphasis
> rightly comes at the edges, the prologue and the epilogue. Of the two
> options, I prefer that of Fiorenza.
>
> One does not need to succumb to the argument that all chiasms are
> inventions of the interpreter, it seems to me that ABA thinking was as
> natural to the Hebrew mindset as ABC thinking is to ours. Just as an
> interpreter seeing a 27-point chiasm in this message is indulging in
> fantasy, I suggest that any genuine chiasm in Revelation will be natural
> to the author's thought process and will tend to be relatively simple
> (perhaps seven-point at times?). It seems to me that Talbert illustrates
> a responsible use of chiasm in his book Reading John.
>
> I address these issues briefly in my popular commentary on John.
>
> Jon Paulien, Chair
> New Testament Department
> Andrews University
> jonp@...
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: juanstam@... [mailto:juanstam@...] On Behalf Of
> Juan Stam
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 10:03 AM
> To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [revelation-list] Re: chiasmus
>
>
> Of course, the term comes from the Greek letter Chi, and refers to a
> structure of A1 - B1 - B2  -A2 (inverted, like the points of a Chi).  A
> good
> example is Phil 2:6:
>
> A1 "being in the form of God"
> B1 "did not consider equality an usurpation"
> B2 "but emptied himself" (vs usurp)
> A2 "and took the form of a servant"
>
> Here A2 clearly pairs with A1 ("form" both times), on the outside of the
> chiasmus, and B2 with B1 on the inside (as corresponding negative and
> positive pair).
>
> (I'm using the English to avoid transliteration complications from the
> Greek)
>
> When the same struggle is applied to large documents, it is usually
> called
> concentric, & the key to the message is located in the very center (ej
> Rev
> 12 for book of Rev)
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Juan Stam (Costa Rica)
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

Although it is liturgical, the *Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice* is also
apocalyptic in many ways.  In this connection, it is worth pointing out that
some scholars see a concentric pattern in this work, and regard the liturgy for
week 7 (out of 13 total) as the climax of the work.  (I think this is Carol
Newsom's view, if I remember correctly.)

Other scholars, however, see no such concentric structure, and identify week 13
as the climax.  Like Stam, I am also skeptical of "concentricity proposals," and
my own view of *Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice* is that it is not concentric.
Nevertheless, it is worth noting that some scholars *think* it is, and their
arguments might be relevant to the present discussion.


John C. Poirier
Middletown, Ohio


Juan Stam wrote:

> To corroborate or refute these concentricity proposals, I have looked a bit
> for other apocalyptic literature that might have a concentric pattern, but I
> have found none.  Does anyone know of examples in apocalyptic literare?

I like Juan's proposal for a comprehensive search for concentric
patterns in ancient apocalyptic outside Revelation. This would have some
bearing on structural proposals for John's Apocalypse. It should not be
forgotten, however, that Revelation has characteristics of prophecy,
drama and epistle and is, therefore, not a pure apocalypse, if such a
thing ever existed. If Revelation proves to be chiastic, it may be on
account of the non-apocalyptic aspects of the document.

Although his work has not engaged wide attention, Kenneth Strand notes
some compelling evidence (in my opinion) for a concentric pattern in
John's Apocalypse in his book Interpreting the Book of Revelation,
second edition (Naples, FL: Ann Arbor Publishers, 1979), pages 45-47.
While I believe his analysis runs aground a bit in the middle, the
concentric parallels between Rev 1-11 and 16-22 are rather remarkable
and deserve some sort of attention in any analysis of the structure of
the book.

Bowman's seven-part dramatic structure of the book (in the Interpreter's
Dictionary of the Bible, article on Revelation) fits remarkably well
with Strand's analysis, suggesting, perhaps, a Hebrew twist on a plot
scheme drawn from Greek drama.

Jon Paulien, Chair
New Testament Department
Andrews University
jonp@...


-----Original Message-----
From: juanstam@... [mailto:juanstam@...] On Behalf Of
Juan Stam
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 10:10 AM
To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [revelation-list] Re: chiasmus


I agree with John Paulien that ABA thinking was natural to the Hebrew
mindset (perhaps like puns or alliteration in modern mindset) but my
doubts
arrive when concentric patterns are imposed on entire books, like
Revelation.

To corroborate or refute these concentricity proposals, I have looked a
bit
for other apocalyptic literature that might have a concentric pattern,
but I
have found none.  Does anyone know of examples in apocalyptic literare?

Juan Stam



----- Original Message -----
From: "jonp" <jonp@...>
To: <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 2:29 PM
Subject: RE: [revelation-list] Re: chiasmus


> While he likes the phrase "concentric pattern" for both types, Charles
> Talbert (Reading John, especially bottom of page 124) distinguishes
> "chiasms" into two types, an odd-numbered pattern (ABA or ABCBA),
which
> is accurately called chiasm, and an even-numbered pattern (ABBA or
> ABCCBA) which is correctly called an epanados. The chiasm, with a
single
> element in the center, highlights that center as the key to the
passage
> or the book.  The epanados, on the other hand, places the emphasis at
> the edges.
>
> If one reads Revelation as a chiasm (as Fiorenza essentially does) the
> emphasis would be somewhere in chapters 12-14. If one reads it as an
> epanados (as Strand does, although he calls it a chiasm), the emphasis
> rightly comes at the edges, the prologue and the epilogue. Of the two
> options, I prefer that of Fiorenza.
>
> One does not need to succumb to the argument that all chiasms are
> inventions of the interpreter, it seems to me that ABA thinking was as
> natural to the Hebrew mindset as ABC thinking is to ours. Just as an
> interpreter seeing a 27-point chiasm in this message is indulging in
> fantasy, I suggest that any genuine chiasm in Revelation will be
natural
> to the author's thought process and will tend to be relatively simple
> (perhaps seven-point at times?). It seems to me that Talbert
illustrates
> a responsible use of chiasm in his book Reading John.
>
> I address these issues briefly in my popular commentary on John.
>
> Jon Paulien, Chair
> New Testament Department
> Andrews University
> jonp@...
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: juanstam@... [mailto:juanstam@...] On Behalf Of
> Juan Stam
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 10:03 AM
> To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [revelation-list] Re: chiasmus
>
>
> Of course, the term comes from the Greek letter Chi, and refers to a
> structure of A1 - B1 - B2  -A2 (inverted, like the points of a Chi).
A
> good
> example is Phil 2:6:
>
> A1 "being in the form of God"
> B1 "did not consider equality an usurpation"
> B2 "but emptied himself" (vs usurp)
> A2 "and took the form of a servant"
>
> Here A2 clearly pairs with A1 ("form" both times), on the outside of
the
> chiasmus, and B2 with B1 on the inside (as corresponding negative and
> positive pair).
>
> (I'm using the English to avoid transliteration complications from the
> Greek)
>
> When the same struggle is applied to large documents, it is usually
> called
> concentric, & the key to the message is located in the very center (ej
> Rev
> 12 for book of Rev)
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Juan Stam (Costa Rica)
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

John wrote:
>Although it is liturgical, the *Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice* is also
>apocalyptic in many ways.  In this connection, it is worth pointing out
that
>some scholars see a concentric pattern in this work

and

>Other scholars, however, see no such concentric structure

I wonder if we could step back a little and ask a question about
methodology, which I think (in this and other areas) is overlooked. What are
the grounds on which we might determine such a structure? What is the root
of the disagreements? Is it that certain words are or are not present, or
themes are thought to be present or absent--or what?

I do not have the arguments about Revelation's structure in my head to do
such an analysis spontaneously--but I think it would be fruitful to
enquire... (The one example I have to hand is Alan Garrow's unusual thesis
about Revelation's structure, and I do think it founders on precisely this
question of method.)

Ian Paul
.......................
Revd Dr Ian Paul  32 Penn Hill Avenue, Poole, Dorset BH14 9LZ
     01202 745963  fax 01202 385539
Also Managing Editor, Grove Books Ltd, Ridley Hall Road, Cambridge CB3 9HU
     01223 464748  fax 01223 464849
http://www.grovebooks.co.uk