The vision is from him who is,was and is to come,therefore the imagery also
could be from the past.


Reidar Kristiansen
rki@...

------------------------------------------------------------
Få din egen @start.no-adresse gratis på http://www.start.no/

I am currently working on the letters to the seven churches of Asia, trying
to better understand their place and function in the book as a whole.
I am wondering if their place at the beginning of Revelation would not be
explained by the usual macrostructure of Old Testament prophetic books. As a
matter of fact, it has been noticed that Proto-Isaiah, Jeremiah (LXX) and
Ezekiel share a common macrostructure in three parts:

Oracles about Juda              Oracles about       Promisses
and Jerusalem                        the nations

Isa. 1-12                               Isa. 13-27                Isa. 28-35
Jer. LXX 1:1 - 25:13           Jer. 25:14-32:28      Jer. 33-42
Ezek 1-24                             Ezek 25-32               Ezek 33-48

(on this, see J. VERMEYLEN, "L'unité du livre d'Isaïe" in "The Book of
Isaiah", BETL 81, Louvain: Leuven University Press, 1989, 28-32)

It has also been noticed that the Twelve Prophets considered as a whole have
been ordered by the LXX according to a similar order. For instance, Hoseah,
Amos and Micah (coming first according to the LXX order) deal mainly with
Israel and Judah.
(see P. M. BOGAERT, "L'organisation des grands recueils prophétiques" in
"The Book of Isaiah", BETL 81, 147-143).

Wouldn't the Book of Revelation, which claims to be a prophetic book, use a
similar macrostructure in three parts in which:

- Rev. 1-3 would be similar to the oracles about the People of God
- Rev. 6-20 would be similar to the oracles about the nations (it does not
matter here how these chapters are organized)
- Rev. 21-22 would be similar to the promisses

Has any commentator of Revelation ever used such an hypothesis? Any input on
this would be welcome.

Alain M. de Lassus
Ecole Saint Jean
Notre Dame de Rimont
F - 71390 Fley

Alan, I have been out of pocket, in Texas, for several days. My apologies
for the delay. Further, I am preparing for a seminar in North Carolina, with
four major speeches, and will not be able to respond to anything for a bit.
Hopefully, my thoughts below will also cover some of the inquiries from Ed
Garcia, and perhaps, to an extent, by George as well.

In regards to your question, we know that the words mean that the events
were near, and to occur soon by the normal means of communication and
hermeneutic.
By observing the normal, common (koine) meaning and usage of the words.
By observing the context of their usage.
By the lexical aids.
It has always struck me as a bit strange that when we observe the use of
mello, tachos, engus, and even en taxei, with their cognates, in
non-eschatological contexts, that there is virtually no debate about the
temporal imminence indicated by these terms. We seldom if ever hear anyone
argue, for instance, that when the Jews passover was at hand (engus), or
when "the time of the fruit drew near" (engizo, Mt. 21:34), this did not
mean a temporal imminence. Examples could be multiplied. The point is that
these are temporal expressions. (Engus of course also expresses spatial
proximity, but the idea of nearness is still to the fore.)
There is another element here, that I see virtually ignored in the
literature, and that is the temporal contrasts.
We often find expressions that prophetic events were far off (Numbers
24:17f; Hebrews 11:13-16), and not near (Daniel 8:26; 12:4). The New
Testament writers say that the Old Covenant prophets were told that the last
days events they were foretelling were not for their times. However, the New
Covenant prophets were told, and said that what the Old prophets anticipated
was being fulfilled and was about to be consummated (1 Peter 1:10f). In
Revelation, for instance, the Danielic predictions serve as the blueprint of
the consummative events being foretold by John. What Daniel was told was not
near--and thus he was instructed to seal the book-- was now so near in
John's day that John was told not to seal the book. I do not find anywhere
in the Apocalypse that John communicated the idea that the events he was
foretelling were not near.
If we can argue that "at hand" does not mean near, what will we argue that
"not at hand" means? If quickly does not mean soon, then does "not near"
mean it could happen very soon?
These are but a few of the reasons why I disagree with the posit that the
chronological indicators of Revelation are not all that important. The book
is rife with indications that its fulfillment was near. The book is
bracketed with warnings of the imminent consummation, and calls for ethical
conduct in light of that soon coming climax. There is more on this than I
have time to develop, but this issue alone emphasizes my point well, I
think.
Well, I have gone on long enough.
Thanks for your thoughts and inquiry,
Don K. Preston

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Fuller" <rocsy@...>
To: <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 11:48 AM
Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Ezekiel


>
> Don K.,
>
> You write:
> >>My problem is that when we extrapolate the Apocalypse into the
> distant future, from John, or for that matter from us, we are
> violating the temporal parameters established by the One who gave the
> revelation to the visionary.
> While it is somewhat customary to either ignore the time indicators
> of the book, or to mitigate them into virtual meaninglessness, it
> strikes me that it is a wiser course of action to seek the true
> meaning of the apocalypsis within the sitz em leben of John's first
> century world.<<
>
> I assume you mean "soon" and "quickly,"  as Edgar pointed out.  What
> meaning do these words have in the first century world, and what do
> we base our understanding on?
>
> What method of interpretation was used to understand these things in
> the first century world?
>
> Thanks,
> Alan F.
> Texas
>
>
> --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, "Don K" <dkpret@b...> wrote:
> > Re: [revelation-list] EzekielI personally have no problem with the
> idea that John was envisioning real events, in imagery of course. My
> problem
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

Don,

Thank you for taking time to make an excellent response to my post.

It doesn't seem strange to me to view the mentioned words in a normal
way in non-eschatological contexts, but view them in another way in
eschatalogical terms.  Then again, when we use similar words today
we're usually not, if ever, referring to a span of several years.
whether a span of several years should be considered more temporal in
regards to prophecy than several thousand I'm not sure.  I think the
context they're used in is the most important thing in eschatalogical
terms.

I think we can also find expressions in the OT that make prophetic
events sound near (Isa 46:13 51:5 61:11, compare Ro 1:17 3:21-26 10:3-
15 ).

I think we do well to look at Daniel in relation to the "end times."
We are told several times that the vision in Daniel eight is for the
end times (8:17 19 26).  So if we accept the traditional meaning and
interpretation of Daniel eight the end times started about 550 BC.
That's about the same time that Daniel eight claims to be written.
That doesn't seem like many days to me.

Daniel 12:4 asserts that the last vision of Daniel won't be
understood until the end.  Is it understood?  If so when was the end
where it became understood?  Also, if it is understood I would like
for the ones who understand it to give me a better explanation so
that I might understand all of it myself.

The questions you ask about "near" and "at hand" deserve a closer
look.  But I'm not yet convinced the words mean anything at all in
and eschatological context.  Not yet anyway, but I look forward to
futher discussions.

Again, thank you for your time.

Alan F.

--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, "Don K" <dkpret@b...> wrote:
> Alan, I have been out of pocket, in Texas, for several days. My
apologies
> for the delay. Further, I am preparing for a seminar in North
Carolina, with
> four major speeches, and will not be able to respond to anything
for a bit.
> Hopefully, my thoughts below will also cover some of the inquiries
from Ed
> Garcia, and perhaps, to an extent, by George as well.
>
> In regards to your question, we know that the words mean that the
events
> were near, and to occur soon by the normal means of communication
and
> hermeneutic.
> By observing the normal, common (koine) meaning and usage of the
words.
> By observing the context of their usage.
> By the lexical aids.
> It has always struck me as a bit strange that when we observe the
use of
> mello, tachos, engus, and even en taxei, with their cognates, in
> non-eschatological contexts, that there is virtually no debate
about the
> temporal imminence indicated by these terms. We seldom if ever hear
anyone
> argue, for instance, that when the Jews passover was at hand
(engus), or
> when "the time of the fruit drew near" (engizo, Mt. 21:34), this
did not
> mean a temporal imminence. Examples could be multiplied. The point
is that
> these are temporal expressions. (Engus of course also expresses
spatial
> proximity, but the idea of nearness is still to the fore.)
> There is another element here, that I see virtually ignored in the
> literature, and that is the temporal contrasts.
> We often find expressions that prophetic events were far off
(Numbers
> 24:17f; Hebrews 11:13-16), and not near (Daniel 8:26; 12:4). The New
> Testament writers say that the Old Covenant prophets were told that
the last
> days events they were foretelling were not for their times.
However, the New
> Covenant prophets were told, and said that what the Old prophets
anticipated
> was being fulfilled and was about to be consummated (1 Peter
1:10f). In
> Revelation, for instance, the Danielic predictions serve as the
blueprint of
> the consummative events being foretold by John. What Daniel was
told was not
> near--and thus he was instructed to seal the book-- was now so near
in
> John's day that John was told not to seal the book. I do not find
anywhere
> in the Apocalypse that John communicated the idea that the events
he was
> foretelling were not near.
> If we can argue that "at hand" does not mean near, what will we
argue that
> "not at hand" means? If quickly does not mean soon, then does "not
near"
> mean it could happen very soon?
> These are but a few of the reasons why I disagree with the posit
that the
> chronological indicators of Revelation are not all that important.
The book
> is rife with indications that its fulfillment was near. The book is
> bracketed with warnings of the imminent consummation, and calls for
ethical
> conduct in light of that soon coming climax. There is more on this
than I
> have time to develop, but this issue alone emphasizes my point
well, I
> think.
> Well, I have gone on long enough.
> Thanks for your thoughts and inquiry,
> Don K. Preston
>

Dear Alain

I have looked at the way in which the promises to each church "who conquers"
are fulfilled in chapters 19-22. The only reward which doesn't seem to be
administered in the final section is the hidden manna and white stone
promised to Pergamum (although the 'new name' is given).

Cheers

Greg Clarke


.......................
Dr G.J.Clarke
Editor | Matthias Media
Contact:    office (61 2) 9663 1478
                  fax: (61 2) 9663 3265
                  email: gclarke@...
                  mail to: PO Box 225 | Kingsford | NSW | Australia | 2032

Publishing The Briefing | kategoria | 2 Ways to Live and more...
Visit www.matthiasmedia.com.au for free downloads


> From: "P. Alain-Marie de Lassus" <alain.m.delassus@...>
> Reply-To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 21:18:41 +0200
> To: Revelation List <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [revelation-list] Prophecy
>
> I am currently working on the letters to the seven churches of Asia, trying
> to better understand their place and function in the book as a whole.
> I am wondering if their place at the beginning of Revelation would not be
> explained by the usual macrostructure of Old Testament prophetic books. As a
> matter of fact, it has been noticed that Proto-Isaiah, Jeremiah (LXX) and
> Ezekiel share a common macrostructure in three parts:
>
> Oracles about Juda              Oracles about       Promisses
> and Jerusalem                        the nations
>
> Isa. 1-12                               Isa. 13-27                Isa. 28-35
> Jer. LXX 1:1 - 25:13           Jer. 25:14-32:28      Jer. 33-42
> Ezek 1-24                             Ezek 25-32               Ezek 33-48
>
> (on this, see J. VERMEYLEN, "L'unité du livre d'Isaïe" in "The Book of
> Isaiah", BETL 81, Louvain: Leuven University Press, 1989, 28-32)
>
> It has also been noticed that the Twelve Prophets considered as a whole have
> been ordered by the LXX according to a similar order. For instance, Hoseah,
> Amos and Micah (coming first according to the LXX order) deal mainly with
> Israel and Judah.
> (see P. M. BOGAERT, "L'organisation des grands recueils prophétiques" in
> "The Book of Isaiah", BETL 81, 147-143).
>
> Wouldn't the Book of Revelation, which claims to be a prophetic book, use a
> similar macrostructure in three parts in which:
>
> - Rev. 1-3 would be similar to the oracles about the People of God
> - Rev. 6-20 would be similar to the oracles about the nations (it does not
> matter here how these chapters are organized)
> - Rev. 21-22 would be similar to the promisses
>
> Has any commentator of Revelation ever used such an hypothesis? Any input on
> this would be welcome.
>
> Alain M. de Lassus
> Ecole Saint Jean
> Notre Dame de Rimont
> F - 71390 Fley
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

Dear all,

I'm particulary interested, here and now, in knowing which real sense have
Jesus' words in the final part of Re 22:16: EGO EIMI ... O ASTER O LAMPROS O
PROINOS (I am the bright morning star).

Where can I find something solid and well based, some specific answer(s) to
this question (and not general comparisons as, for instance, with Is 14:12;
or general considerations as, for instance, "star is a messianic symbol (see
Nm 24:17)" as I read in my catalan bible)?

Beside this is it possible too you make me know what you think about this
Jesus' cutting assertion?

I should be grateful to those who show their mind about this subject.

Pere Porta Roca,
a chrystian believer

Hi Pere Porta Roca,

I'm sure you're already familiar with this, but I'll mention it since
you didn't.  Second Peter 1:19 describes Christ as the morning star
which outshines the light of the earlier prophetic witness.

I think Second Peter 1:19 is intresting when looking at the timing of
prophetic fulfillment.  How long is "soon" in prophecy?  How
immediate is "quickly?"   How long is the time span until the day
dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts?

If we look at these things in an idealistic fashion, I don't think we
need to limit them to a first century experience.  Maybe that's why
John the Revelator used this particular symbol.

Thanks and I hope you find the information you're looking for.

Alan
Texas


--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, "Pere Porta Roca"
<pporta@t...> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I'm particulary interested, here and now, in knowing which real
sense have
> Jesus' words in the final part of Re 22:16: EGO EIMI ... O ASTER O
LAMPROS O
> PROINOS (I am the bright morning star).
>
> Where can I find something solid and well based, some specific
answer(s) to
> this question (and not general comparisons as, for instance, with
Is 14:12;
> or general considerations as, for instance, "star is a messianic
symbol (see
> Nm 24:17)" as I read in my catalan bible)?
>
> Beside this is it possible too you make me know what you think
about this
> Jesus' cutting assertion?
>
> I should be grateful to those who show their mind about this
subject.
>
> Pere Porta Roca,
> a chrystian believer

Hi Pere

Morning star here is not exactly the same word as in 2 Peter though it may
have similar sense.

2 Peter 1:19 is phosphoros - bearer of light - lucifer in the Latin of
Cicero - so Aune points out.  Curious that this title applied in Isaiah
14:12 to Lucifer is taken as a name by the speaker of this passage in Rev.

Rev 22:16 is part of the 'closing bracket' of the book, picking up the gift
noted in Rev 2:28. Aune points out that Rev 22:10-20 forms the epilogue of
Rev as a classically formed oration.

Aune has a page on the Messianic symbolism (1227) including the intriguing
comment that the Damascus document, alluding to Numbers 24:17, calls the
star (Messiah) the interpreter of Torah.

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

This article Thomas B. SLATER Biblica 84 (2003) 252-258 may be of interest
to the list

http://www.bsw.org/?l=71841&a=Ani04.html

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

Hello, Alan, and by the way thanks for your comments on the other post. Very
much appreciated.
I would only add this. I think that the star referent goes back to Numbers
24. If that be the case, note that Balaam said "I see him but not near."
That "not near" allusion spans a time of almost 1500 years. If we then
compare that "not near" with Peter's statements that "the end of all things
has drawn near" (engeken), it seems incongruous to me that the fulfillment
of Peter's eschatological prediction would lie outside that 1500 year
parameter. There is a marked contrast between the coming of the star
anticipated in Numbers and that anticipated by Peter.
This contrast is emphasized when Peter says that the Old Covenant prophets
were informed that the salvation that they foretold, to come at in the last
times, was not for their day, but for Peter's contemporary generation (Cf
Jesus' thoughts on this Matthew 13:17, and Hebrews 11:13f as well). Once
again, this chronological contrast seems important. Peter certainly believed
he and his contemporaries were living n the days foretold by the OT prophets
(Acts 3:21f).
Thanks again for your thoughts,
Don K

A PS here.
Can anyone point me to some good literature on the 144,000 of chapter 7 and
14 of the Apocalypse?
Thanks

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Fuller" <rocsy@...>
To: <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 2:02 PM
Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Morning star


>
> Hi Pere Porta Roca,
>
> I'm sure you're already familiar with this, but I'll mention it since
> you didn't.  Second Peter 1:19 describes Christ as the morning star
> which outshines the light of the earlier prophetic witness.
>
> I think Second Peter 1:19 is intresting when looking at the timing of
> prophetic fulfillment.  How long is "soon" in prophecy?  How
> immediate is "quickly?"   How long is the time span until the day
> dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts?
>
> If we look at these things in an idealistic fashion, I don't think we
> need to limit them to a first century experience.  Maybe that's why
> John the Revelator used this particular symbol.
>
> Thanks and I hope you find the information you're looking for.
>
> Alan
> Texas
>
>
> --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, "Pere Porta Roca"
> <pporta@t...> wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I'm particulary interested, here and now, in knowing which real
> sense have
> > Jesus' words in the final part of Re 22:16: EGO EIMI ... O ASTER O
> LAMPROS O
> > PROINOS (I am the bright morning star).
> >
> > Where can I find something solid and well based, some specific
> answer(s) to
> > this question (and not general comparisons as, for instance, with
> Is 14:12;
> > or general considerations as, for instance, "star is a messianic
> symbol (see
> > Nm 24:17)" as I read in my catalan bible)?
> >
> > Beside this is it possible too you make me know what you think
> about this
> > Jesus' cutting assertion?
> >
> > I should be grateful to those who show their mind about this
> subject.
> >
> > Pere Porta Roca,
> > a chrystian believer
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

On the 144,000 in Rev. 7 and 14 check Richard Bauckham's The Climax of
Prophecy (T. & T. Clark) chap. 8, pp. 215-32.

Dave Mathewson





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

Thanks very much, Dave, I appreciate it.
Don K
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Mathewson" <d_mathewson@...>
To: <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 8:15 AM
Subject: [revelation-list] Re: 144,000


> On the 144,000 in Rev. 7 and 14 check Richard Bauckham's The Climax of
> Prophecy (T. & T. Clark) chap. 8, pp. 215-32.
>
> Dave Mathewson
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

Don and others,

I've convinced at least myself that my treatment of the 144k in _Parables
of War: Reading John's Jewish Apocalypse_ (WLU press, 2001) pp. 147-63 is
helpful.  Any feedback is welcome.

--jwm
_____________________________________________________________
John W. Marshall
Department for the Study of Religion, University of Toronto

Thank you, John, I will get it via inter-library if at all possible.
Don K. Preston

----- Original Message -----
From: <john.marshall@...>
To: <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: [revelation-list] Re: 144,000


> Don and others,
>
> I've convinced at least myself that my treatment of the 144k in _Parables
> of War: Reading John's Jewish Apocalypse_ (WLU press, 2001) pp. 147-63 is
> helpful.  Any feedback is welcome.
>
> --jwm
> _____________________________________________________________
> John W. Marshall
> Department for the Study of Religion, University of Toronto
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

Dear Alan,

In your response to Pere Porta Roca you mention 2 Pet 1:19 and
say

<<<I'm sure you're already familiar with this, but I'll mention it
since you didn't. Second Peter 1:19 describes Christ as the
morning star which outshines the light of the earlier prophetic
witness.
I think Second Peter 1:19 is intresting when looking at the timing
of prophetic fulfillment. How long is "soon" in prophecy? How
immediate is "quickly?" How long is the time span until the day
dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts?
If we look at these things in an idealistic fashion, I don't think we
need to limit them to a first century experience. Maybe that's why
John the Revelator used this particular symbol.>>>

I think, though not for the same reason, that you are right to see
this verse as important in understanding the 'soons' and
'quicklies' of the Apocalypse. However, I would like to suggest
that 'John the Revelator' did not use this symbol because Peter
had included it. On the contrary, Peter used it because he was
familiar with its use in the Revelation.

I received no responses to my post of April 1 (an unfortunate
date for it!)  and so I did not do the second part. If I had, this
reference to the Morning Star would have been one of the
indicators that 2 Peter (with 1 Peter) was written in anticipation of
the immediate fulfilment of the things foretold in the Revelation.
The urgency has clearly heightened with the second epistle.

Sincerely,

Kym Smith
Adelaide
South Australia
khs@...

Dear Kym,

Thanks for your insight.  I have gone back and re-read your earlier
post, and I think it makes a lot of sense.  It is intresting to
compare similarities between the epistles and Revelation.

I actually prefer an early dating of Revelation, but I can live with
either view.

And thanks to the others for their comments also.

Alan F.
Texas


--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, "kymhsm" <ksmith@s...> wrote:
> Dear Alan,
>
> In your response to Pere Porta Roca you mention 2 Pet 1:19 and
> say
>
> <<<I'm sure you're already familiar with this, but I'll mention it
> since you didn't. Second Peter 1:19 describes Christ as the
> morning star which outshines the light of the earlier prophetic
> witness.
> I think Second Peter 1:19 is intresting when looking at the timing
> of prophetic fulfillment. How long is "soon" in prophecy? How
> immediate is "quickly?" How long is the time span until the day
> dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts?
> If we look at these things in an idealistic fashion, I don't think
we
> need to limit them to a first century experience. Maybe that's why
> John the Revelator used this particular symbol.>>>
>
> I think, though not for the same reason, that you are right to see
> this verse as important in understanding the 'soons' and
> 'quicklies' of the Apocalypse. However, I would like to suggest
> that 'John the Revelator' did not use this symbol because Peter
> had included it. On the contrary, Peter used it because he was
> familiar with its use in the Revelation.
>
> I received no responses to my post of April 1 (an unfortunate
> date for it!)  and so I did not do the second part. If I had, this
> reference to the Morning Star would have been one of the
> indicators that 2 Peter (with 1 Peter) was written in anticipation
of
> the immediate fulfilment of the things foretold in the Revelation.
> The urgency has clearly heightened with the second epistle.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Kym Smith
> Adelaide
> South Australia
> khs@p...

Are any of you aware of scholarly articles or even books which discuss
whether Rev 16:12 perhaps alludes to Cyrus in Isaiah 40ff?

So far I have found a quite detailed discussion in Beale's recent commentary
and a few scattered remarks in other commentaries, but nothing more.

Any references would be welcome. Thank you very much in advance.


Dr. Georg S. adamsen

Beale's work does appear to be the best scholarly outline of this
position.

In his new commentary (Revelation of Jesus Christ, Andrews University
Press, 2002, p. 491) Ranko Stefanovic also seems to understand the Cyrus
account of Isa 44-45, along with the fall of Babylon passage in Jer
50-51, as an essential subtext for the whole of Rev 16-19. I agree and
would extend that through Rev 22.

I may have been the one who first pointed him in that direction, but I
have not written about it specifically. I did address the larger context
of the passage briefly in my article on "Armageddon" in the Anchor Bible
Dictionary in 1992.

The fall of Babylon narratives in the Hebrew Bible detail a king who
arises in the East (rising sun-- Isa 41:2,25), who dries up the
Euphrates River (Jer 50:37-38; 51:36; Isa 44:24-28), conquers Babylon
(Isa 44-47, Jer 50-51, Dan 5), frees the exiles of Judah (Jer 50:33-34)
and builds a new Jerusalem (Isa 44:24-28). Assuming John was familiar
with these texts, an assumption warranted by most analyses of his use of
the Hebrew Bible, these narratives of the prophets bear a remarkable
resemblance to the broad narrative of Rev 16-22. If John had such a
subtext in mind, the "kings from the rising of the sun" in Rev 16:12
would be the most fitting place to look for a Cyrus allusion.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Georg S. Adamsen [mailto:gsa@...]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 6:03 AM
To: Revelation-List@Yahoogroups. Com
Subject: [revelation-list] Cyrus and Rev 16:12

Are any of you aware of scholarly articles or even books which discuss
whether Rev 16:12 perhaps alludes to Cyrus in Isaiah 40ff?

So far I have found a quite detailed discussion in Beale's recent
commentary
and a few scattered remarks in other commentaries, but nothing more.

Any references would be welcome. Thank you very much in advance.


Dr. Georg S. adamsen



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/

Fekkes seems to think it is not an allusion.
Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions (JSOT Sheffield), p. 166.

Anyway, someone told me that this verse was just fulfilled in Iraq ;)

Greg Clarke


.......................
Dr G.J.Clarke
Editor | Matthias Media
Contact:    office (61 2) 9663 1478
                  fax: (61 2) 9663 3265
                  email: gclarke@...
                  mail to: PO Box 225 | Kingsford | NSW | Australia | 2032

Publishing The Briefing | kategoria | 2 Ways to Live and more...
Visit www.matthiasmedia.com.au for free downloads


> From: "Georg S. Adamsen" <gsa@...>
> Reply-To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 12:02:31 +0200
> To: "Revelation-List@Yahoogroups. Com" <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [revelation-list] Cyrus and Rev 16:12
>
> Are any of you aware of scholarly articles or even books which discuss
> whether Rev 16:12 perhaps alludes to Cyrus in Isaiah 40ff?
>
> So far I have found a quite detailed discussion in Beale's recent commentary
> and a few scattered remarks in other commentaries, but nothing more.
>
> Any references would be welcome. Thank you very much in advance.
>
>
> Dr. Georg S. adamsen
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

Georg,

Does perhaps Jan Fekkes III address this in Isaiah and the Prophetic
Traditions in the Book of Revelation (JSNTSup93)? I do not presently have
access to a copy to check it out for you.

Ralph Korner
Taylor University College
Edmonton, AB


>From: "Georg S. Adamsen" <gsa@...>
>Reply-To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
>To: "Revelation-List@Yahoogroups. Com" <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: [revelation-list] Cyrus and Rev 16:12
>Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 12:02:31 +0200
>
>Are any of you aware of scholarly articles or even books which discuss
>whether Rev 16:12 perhaps alludes to Cyrus in Isaiah 40ff?
>
>So far I have found a quite detailed discussion in Beale's recent
>commentary
>and a few scattered remarks in other commentaries, but nothing more.
>
>Any references would be welcome. Thank you very much in advance.
>
>
>Dr. Georg S. adamsen
>

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

I agree with much of what Slater wrote, except that I believe
that the apostle John wrote the Revelation.

I think that the statement from Irenaeus is very weak evidence
for the dating of this book. Besides, I don't see Irenaeus as
a reliable witness. Elsewhere, he wrote that Jesus had lived
to be about 50 years old. If it were a non religious ancient
writer making factual errors, it would objectively be considered
non reliable for that reason.

It should also be noted that there are translation issues affecting
the proper understanding of what Irenaeus wrote. Also, his writing
was about a century after the fact. He referred to Polycarp (who
supposedly knew the apostle John). Secondly, the key part — "it is
not long since it was seen" — is ambiguous. According to Irenaeus
recollection, Polycarp saw "it" sometime in of AD 95-96, during the
last part Domitian's reign. Thirdly, we do not know if the "it"
Polycarp was referring to was John, the visions he saw, the name of
anti-christ, or the book itself and we do not know if he meant that
the book was written at that time or not. Furthermore, it comes to
us through three people separated by three centuries.

It is hard to put too much confidence in ancient writings which
often contradict each other. Some will readily accept these
uncritically because of tradition.

Mark Loftus
Lansdowne, PA


--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, "Aleksandar Milanovic"
<amilanov@f...> wrote:
> Dear friends,
> Have you read Slaters' article about the date of Revelation (T. B.
Slater, Dating the Apocalypse to John, Biblica 84(2003) 252-258.
http://www.bsw.org/?l=7184 )?  What is your opinion about his
arguments for dating of Revelation in 68-70AD?
> Sincerely,
> Alexander Milanovic
> Belgrade (Serbia)

I am curious, what are your reasons for accepting the apostle John as
the writer of Revelation?

Thank you.

Ed Garcia

-----Original Message-----
From: mloftus955 [mailto:mloftus955@...]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 3:26 PM
To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Slaters' article in Biblica


I agree with much of what Slater wrote, except that I believe that the
apostle John wrote the Revelation.

I think that the statement from Irenaeus is very weak evidence for the
dating of this book. Besides, I don't see Irenaeus as a reliable
witness. Elsewhere, he wrote that Jesus had lived
to be about 50 years old. If it were a non religious ancient
writer making factual errors, it would objectively be considered non
reliable for that reason.

It should also be noted that there are translation issues affecting
the proper understanding of what Irenaeus wrote. Also, his writing
was about a century after the fact. He referred to Polycarp (who
supposedly knew the apostle John). Secondly, the key part - "it is
not long since it was seen" - is ambiguous. According to Irenaeus
recollection, Polycarp saw "it" sometime in of AD 95-96, during the
last part Domitian's reign. Thirdly, we do not know if the "it"
Polycarp was referring to was John, the visions he saw, the name of
anti-christ, or the book itself and we do not know if he meant that
the book was written at that time or not. Furthermore, it comes to
us through three people separated by three centuries.

It is hard to put too much confidence in ancient writings which often
contradict each other. Some will readily accept these
uncritically because of tradition.

Mark Loftus
Lansdowne, PA


--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, "Aleksandar Milanovic"
<amilanov@f...> wrote:
> Dear friends,
> Have you read Slaters' article about the date of Revelation (T. B.
Slater, Dating the Apocalypse to John, Biblica 84(2003) 252-258.
http://www.bsw.org/?l=7184 )?  What is your opinion about his
arguments for dating of Revelation in 68-70AD?
> Sincerely,
> Alexander Milanovic
> Belgrade (Serbia)




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/

        ________________________________________        
        Otto Erlend Nordgreen                               
                                
        Student at Department of Germanic
        Studies, University of Oslo, Norway
        E-mail: otton@...
        Website: http://www.uio.no/~otton/English1.htm
        ________________________________________

        ________________________________________        
        Otto Erlend Nordgreen                               
                                
        Student at Department of Germanic
        Studies, University of Oslo, Norway
        E-mail: otton@...
        Website: http://www.uio.no/~otton/English1.htm
        ________________________________________

Hi Otto, I believe that John wrote the book for other reasons, not
because of Irenaeus, I don't think he's a reliable source.  I think
it is safer to trust the biblical evidence in a matter like this.

Rev 1:9 - "I John, who also am your brother, and companion in
tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in
the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the
testimony of Jesus Christ."

Please note that the above is a direct statement by John as to the
circumstances of his writing of Revelation.  It is therefore more
than just an "assumption" (as Wilson calls it) that the Apocalypse
was written "in an historical background of recent persecution."

This verse shows John as a brother in tribulation, which had taken
place in the AD 60's (not the AD90s).  It shows him as being in
Patmos, there are many sources for that without contradiction.  Who
else could have sent the recording of his visions to those 7 churches
back in the first century and have them accepted as the Word of God
to them?  John, the disciple who was close to Jesus, would certainly
know His Lord. In verse 2 he writes it was he , "Who bare record of
the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all
things that he saw."  Certainly John the apostle was with Jesus
throughout His ministry to fulfill this verse, which sounds like the
introduction to the 1st Letter of John.

There are also patterns in the Revelation similar to those in John's
gospel.  The end of the Revelation is similar to the beginning, with
corresponding verses going up and down the ladder.  It is impossible
for me or for anyone else to *prove* that the John of Revelation is
John the Apostle, and no other.  But these are my reasons for
believing personally that it is.

Mark Loftus


--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, Otto Erlend Nordgreen
<otton@m...> wrote:
> Mark,
>
> according to you:
>
> >I agree with much of what Slater wrote, except that I believe
> >that the apostle John wrote the Revelation.
>
> Why?
>
>
> >I think that the statement from Irenaeus is very weak evidence
> >for the dating of this book. Besides, I don't see Irenaeus as
> >a reliable witness. Elsewhere, he wrote that Jesus had lived
> >to be about 50 years old.
>
> ...but does not Irenaeus also indicate that the apostle John wrote
the
> Apocalypse. Do you consider Irenaeus reliable here? (Perhaps
Irenaeus could
> be trusted in some matters?)
>
> Best wishes
>
> OEN
>
>          ________________________________________
>          Otto Erlend Nordgreen
>
>          Student at Department of Germanic
>          Studies, University of Oslo, Norway
>          E-mail: otton@h...
>          Website: http://www.uio.no/~otton/English1.htm
>          ________________________________________

Hi Ed,
See my answer to Otto's post, basically I read the scripture
itself and not rely on outside sources. The ancient sources
may be "christian" but they are just men. The internal
evidence of the Revelation itself is the most trustworthy
source in my view. There is a saying, "History is written
by the winners".  Besides, I am not tied to traditions.

Mark



--- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, "Ed Garcia" <Ed.Garcia@f...>
wrote:
> I am curious, what are your reasons for accepting the apostle John
as
> the writer of Revelation?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Ed Garcia
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mloftus955 [mailto:mloftus955@y...]
> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 3:26 PM
> To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Slaters' article in Biblica
>
>
> I agree with much of what Slater wrote, except that I believe that
the
> apostle John wrote the Revelation.
>
> I think that the statement from Irenaeus is very weak evidence for
the
> dating of this book. Besides, I don't see Irenaeus as a reliable
> witness. Elsewhere, he wrote that Jesus had lived
> to be about 50 years old. If it were a non religious ancient
> writer making factual errors, it would objectively be considered non
> reliable for that reason.
>
> It should also be noted that there are translation issues affecting
> the proper understanding of what Irenaeus wrote. Also, his writing
> was about a century after the fact. He referred to Polycarp (who
> supposedly knew the apostle John). Secondly, the key part - "it is
> not long since it was seen" - is ambiguous. According to Irenaeus
> recollection, Polycarp saw "it" sometime in of AD 95-96, during the
> last part Domitian's reign. Thirdly, we do not know if the "it"
> Polycarp was referring to was John, the visions he saw, the name of
> anti-christ, or the book itself and we do not know if he meant that
> the book was written at that time or not. Furthermore, it comes to
> us through three people separated by three centuries.
>
> It is hard to put too much confidence in ancient writings which
often
> contradict each other. Some will readily accept these
> uncritically because of tradition.
>
> Mark Loftus
> Lansdowne, PA
>
>
> --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com, "Aleksandar Milanovic"
> <amilanov@f...> wrote:
> > Dear friends,
> > Have you read Slaters' article about the date of Revelation (T. B.
> Slater, Dating the Apocalypse to John, Biblica 84(2003) 252-258.
> http://www.bsw.org/?l=7184 )?  What is your opinion about his
> arguments for dating of Revelation in 68-70AD?
> > Sincerely,
> > Alexander Milanovic
> > Belgrade (Serbia)
>
>
>
>
> 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/

Dear Aleksander,

Thank you for drawing my attention to Slater's article.

The Revelation never appeals to apostolic authority (Slater, p. 253), I think,
because such authority would have been immediately understood by those who read
it.

Otto's observation that Slater allows Nero to be the fifth king is interesting.
Slater opposes those Dometian-date supporters who, (without proving that John
would have also omitted them) exclude Galba, Otho and Vitellius (p. 256), though
they are included in the 'official' lists. Yet he readily accepts Bell's
assessment that Nero was the fifth king (p. 256) despite the fact that Julius is
included on the official lists.

It seems to me that Slater wants to have his cake and eat it too when it comes
to the Revelation being either true prophecy or ex eventu prophecy. He wants
both (p. 257). It may be that the apparent reference to the Nero redivivus myth
in the Apocalypse is, in fact, the origin of the myth rather than a reference to
it.

Nor do we need to see that John was writing in the midst of the tribulations
about which he was writing. Here I disagree with mark (Loftus). The references
to the coming suffering in the Revelation were all future orientated - it was
coming soon. The apostles and others were regularly mistreated for the gospel
and Rev 1:9 is just another such instance. So, as one who was
suffering/persecuted for the gospel, John wrote about a new wave of persecutions
that were about to come upon the Church, persecutions that he thought would
precede the imminent parousia.

I think that the Revelation was truly prophetic in that it indicated events that
had not yet happened and were about to occur. Contrary to Slater (p. 257), I
think that the reason that some of what was predicted seems not to have occurred
(e.g. ch's 21-22) is that the book was also an apocryphon. Perhaps I want my
cake and eat it too!

Finally, one small point, Jerusalem may have been destroyed in a few days (not
42 months - p. 257) but it can be argued that the period of the Beast (i.e.
Nero) who trampled on the living temple, the Church, lasted, as close as can be
estimated, to 42 months. His persecution began close to the end of 64 and he
suicided in June of 68.

For me, to be truly prophetic, the Revelation had to be given before Nero began
his persecutions and with sufficient time for the churches - especially those in
Asia - to respond to the letters addressed to them and which predicted the
coming trouble. I am glad that Bell offers a period of writing as precise as
June 68 to January 69; it makes me less coy about the precision of the date that
I hold, June-July 62.

Sincerely,

Kym Smith
Adelaide
South Australia
khs@...

Whenever the Book of Revelation is discussed it is inevitable that
the date of its writing comes up, and then which seven kings are
represented in chapter 17.

That's all fine, but what if John was writing his book based on
allusions to scripture in a "midarash" style as suggested in archived
message 452?

In Daniel we have a stone that becomes a mountain which represents a
kingdom. The similarity of the four beasts of Daniel seven to the
beasts of Revelation 12, 13, and 17 is obvious, and then there are
the rest of the hundreds of allusions to Old Testament scriptures
found throughout the book.  Is the mountain in Daniel similar to
those mountains in Revelation?  Of course traditonal interpretation
says this is the kingdom of God, quite different than the Revelation
mountains.

Isn't it possible that the symbols in Revelation represent something
other than the politcal environment John was living in?  Couldn't
they represent something a little more theological?

For instance, do the seven horns of 5:6 also represent seven
kingdoms, and/or mountains?  If not, why is the same symbol used to
represent something completely different?

If John was writing in a midrash style of the kind exhibited by NT
writers such as Matthew, then all these symbols should be based on
something in scripture.

I'm familiar with the historicst view that Rome was based on the
earlier Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, etc, and that's why the
symbols were used.  But I'm suggesting that there is a less
historical and more scriptural based meaning.

As I mentioned, we try to correlate chapter 17 with whatever emperors
or mountains were prominent in the first century, or sometime
thereafter.  It seems everybody agrees this is the right approach.
But why are allusions to I Enoch seldom mentioned?  I find what
appear to me obvious allusions to I Enoch, seven stars, burning
mountains, eternal fire, etc. etc.

Here's just a short list I've found so far.

I Enoch 10:6,7,11 binding of rebellious angels
54, 67:4,9
Rev 9:14, 20:2

I Enoch 10:12,13 abyss of fire, eternal judgment,
18:9:10, 21:7 burning valleys
23:1,54:1,56:3 chains
Rev 9:1-2,11, 11:7
17:8, 20:1-3, 19:20, 20:10-15, 21:8

I Enoch 18:6,7, 24:1 seven mountains 32:1, 77:4
Rev 17:9

I Enoch 18:13, 21:4 seven stars and/or burning mountains
Rev 8:8

My question is, if Revelation is talking about first century
persecutions and kings, why are symbols from the Old Testament and
from apochryphal books like I Enoch found in such abundance?  Was
John using these symbols and applying them to his day, or was he
trying to portray something about the texts he drew from?  Did he
believe that I Enoch was writing about the seven hills in Rome, or
perhaps seven Roman emperors?  Does it make sense to interpret I
Enoch in that context?

...And I saw in the vision how the ravens flew upon those lambs and
took one of those lambs, and dashed the sheep in pieces and devoured
them. And I saw till horns grew upon those lambs, and the ravens cast
down their horns; and I saw till there sprouted a great horn of one
of those sheep, and their eyes were opened. And it looked at them
[and their eyes opened], and it cried to the sheep, and the rams saw
it and all ran to it. ... I Enoch 90:8-11

By the way, I have changed my ID from rocsy to eschaton.

Thanks,

Alan,
Texas

Dear Alan,

<<<My question is, if Revelation is talking about first century persecutions and
kings, why are symbols from the Old Testament and from apochryphal books like I
Enoch found in such abundance?>>>

I cannot comment about I Enoch but there are several comments about the use of
the Old Testament (and possibly I Enoch) that, I think, are immediately
apparent.

First is the background of the author. Whether or not it was the Apostle John,
he was obviously steeped in Jewish/OT thinking. He thoughts were so shaped by
the imagery of the Jewish scriptures and other writings that they were the
natural medium for him to use in such a book.

Second is the fact that if the Revelation had not used OT imagery - imagery that
showed continuation and consistency with Jewish or Judeo/Christian thinking - it
is less likely that it would have been received as authoritative by the Church.
It seems that it had enough problems as it was.

Thirdly, while there may have been some variations in the use of the images,
much of the imagery had already been worked out (e.g. by Daniel). This meant
that some, at least, of the Apocalypse was readily understandable to the Church
that received it. Remember that the OT books were the primary scriptures of the
early Church - it was very familiar with them.

Lastly there is the question of how much of what John wrote was 'given' to him
to write as he did. That is, did John choose to use the imagery that he did -
with much of which he was already familiar - as he carefully crafted a book
meant to conceal as well as to reveal? Or (as I am more inclined to believe) did
John write what was given to him in genuine visions so that the imagery he used
was given to rather than chosen by him? If we understand that God revealed
himself through Israel and its law and prophets, then it should be no surprise
that this 'prophecy' should be consistent with what had gone before.

Just a few thoughts,

PS: Something completely different, the same Biblica in which Slater's article
on the dating of the Revelation (discussed on this list
[http://www.bsw.org/?l=7184 ]) can be found has a fascinating article by Reuben
Zimmermann on Nuptial Imagery in the Revelation.

Kym Smith
Adelaide
South Australia
khs@...