Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1064RE: [revelation-list] Re: Rev 2-3 and Rev 4ff

Expand Messages
  • Tom Ricks
    Feb 9, 2009
      Agree with your assessment and appreciate your thoughts. (Unfortunately
      I have heard way too much on the "wild speculation" side of the story!)




      Tom

      Dr. Tom Ricks

      ________________________________

      From: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:revelation-list@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of drjenney2
      Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 8:48 AM
      To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Rev 2-3 and Rev 4ff



      I am confident the original meaning of the Revelation was the actual
      city of Rome. Thus, the "exegetical answer" is Rome itself.

      The "application answer" [hermeneutics proper] is trickier. Certainly
      God is opposed to all kinds of whoredom and, I suppose, there are many
      different cities and nations that have typified this kind of behavior
      since Revelation was penned.

      Ultimately, how one applies this analysis to the contemporary
      situation depends upon his/her/their perspective, far more than it
      depends upon Revelation itself.

      That's as far as I am willing to go on this list, the purpose of which
      is to support the scholarly discussion of Revelation. In my opinion,
      the application questions need to be discussed elsewhere, especially
      as some of them fall into the realm of sheer wild speculation.

      Blessings,
      Timothy P. Jenney, Ph.D.
      Regent University
      Moderator

      --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
      <mailto:revelation-list%40yahoogroups.com> , "Tom Ricks" <tom@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Are you suggesting that the Great Whore is relegated only to Rome? Or
      > are you saying that it symbolizes all "Romes" throughout the history
      of
      > the church? I
      >
      >
      >
      > Tom
      >
      > Dr. Tom Ricks
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________
      >
      > From: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
      <mailto:revelation-list%40yahoogroups.com>
      > [mailto:revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
      <mailto:revelation-list%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of drjenney2
      > Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 4:56 PM
      > To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
      <mailto:revelation-list%40yahoogroups.com>
      > Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Rev 2-3 and Rev 4ff
      >
      >
      >
      > I think you have made some good points here, but you are being too
      > wooden with your approach.
      >
      > The fact that the New Jerusalem has twelve gates need not mean that
      > one must be an Israelite to enter, only that Israel has provided the
      > entry [through its Messiah].
      >
      > Then again, while 12 often carries the idea of completeness, it need
      > not always refer to the twelve tribes (="all Israel). The New
      > Jerusalem is probably a cube because the Holy of Holies was a cube.
      > That its sides are 12 units long may simply mean it that it is
      > "perfectly holy."
      >
      > I'm personally convinced the Great Whore in Revelation is Rome. It's
      > "secret name" came from the letters of its "Roma" reversed: "Amore."
      > Yet it represents not romantic love, but unrestrained lust.
      >
      > I could go on, but I hope you get the idea.
      >
      > Yes, there are symbols in Revelation. It requires as much art in its
      > interpretation as it does correct exegetical technique. Both must vary
      > with the various literary genres contained in Revelation, for the book
      > is not all of a single genre.
      >
      > Hope this helps!
      >
      > "Dr. J"
      > Timothy P. Jenney, Ph. D.
      > Regent Unversity
      > Moderator
      >
      > --- In revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
      <mailto:revelation-list%40yahoogroups.com>
      > <mailto:revelation-list%40yahoogroups.com> , "biblestudy"
      > <biblestudy@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > Can't see it myself. It is clear that "Israel", the idea of "12
      > Tribes" "temple" "Jerusalem" are all symbolic in places in Revelation.
      > Exegetical integrity would demand that one follow through interpreting
      > all references in a symbolic way. It seems to me to be a strange
      > exegetical model that would say some references are symbolic and some
      > literal. This would open the door again to the Pretribulation school
      > methodology which does just that.
      > >
      > > For example:
      > > 12 tribes is clearly meant to be symbolical in Rev 21,22 - the 12
      > gates. What it is saying is that to get into the city one has to be a
      > member of one of the 12 tribes. But the city is clearly the bride of
      > Christ, the church, made up of people of every nation, not just
      > Israelites.
      > > That "Tribes" is symbolical elsewhere in Revelation is shown by the
      > fact that the new Jerusalem is represented as a cube, thus having 12
      > edges, or outside perimeters, each one measuring 12,000 stadia. Hence
      > a total external measurement of 144,000, the same number as we find in
      > Rev 7 and 14 concerning the "12 tribes". Again "144,000 Israelites" is
      > clearly intended to be symbolic.
      > >
      > > Same thing happens with "temple" whichis clearly are ference to the
      > church in Rev 3 "make him a pillar in the temple..." It seems strange
      > exegesis to then make "temple" literal in Chapter 11.
      > >
      > > As for the harlot being Jerusalem - or even Rome - I admit the
      > harlot system was alive and well in those cities at the time of Christ
      > but to limit it to those literal cities would be a great mistake. The
      > Harlot system is with us all the time. It is called Babylon because it
      > began in Babel. But it rules over "7 mountains" which is a typical OT
      > symbol for "empire", and "7" means "totality" i.e. over all the
      > gentile empires. The harlot system is thus a Gentile system, not as
      > Jewish one.
      > >
      > > If we don't use the clues to symbolism John provides us with then we
      > are just guessing out of our own minds.
      > >
      > > Yours
      > > John B
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 16 messages in this topic