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

Rome v Jerusalem

Expand Messages
  • Ed Garcia
    I have read the discussions concerning Rome as the great harlot of Revelation with great interest, however I am still unconvinced. The evidence, I believe,
    Message 1 of 16 , Aug 24, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I have read the discussions concerning Rome as the great harlot of
      Revelation with great interest, however I am still unconvinced. The
      evidence, I believe, points overwhelmingly to Jerusalem as the harlot. Rome
      is an obvious solution but such a conclusion has always struck me as too
      pat, too clean. I am suspicious. Rome as a solution is obvious but maybe too
      obvious.

      Here are a few other points to consider. In Rev. 17:6 John is taken to the
      wilderness marvels to see a harlot drunk with the blood of the saints. To
      see pagan Rome depicted as a drunken, bloodied and blasphemous harlot would
      be nothing to marvel at, yet John marvels. However if we understand the
      harlot as Jerusalem then truly we have something to marvel at. Who was the
      great persecutor of the early church? Starting with the persecution and
      crucifixion of Jesus, to the apostles in hiding for fear of the Jews, to the
      stoning of Steven, to Saul breathing threats and murder against the
      disciples of the Lord, to the struggles of the early church with Judaizers,
      to the persecutions of the apostle Paul, to the troubles of the churches of
      Smyrna and Philadelphia in Revelation it is obvious that the greatest threat
      and danger to the infant church was Judaism, symbolized by Jerusalem. To
      quote St. Paul, "Now we, brethren like Isaac, are children of promise. But
      as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who
      was born according to the Spirit, so it is now." In this very same epistle
      Paul tells us of two Jerusalems. Revelation also speaks of two Jerusalems,
      one the earthly Jerusalem a harlot the other new Jerusalem coming down out
      of heaven. These are but a few of my reasons for understanding the harlot as
      Jerusalem.

      Revelation is the revelation of Jesus Christ the author of our salvation and
      as such it speaks prophetically of the struggle between the old dispensation
      and the new. As for Rome, I do not see that it plays a role of any
      importance in the book of Revelation. Though I am always open to any other
      thoughts.

      Ed Garcia
      Kansas
    • Don K. Preston
      Of course, I concur with Ed Garcia. One of the things that strikes me as odd with the Rome/Babylon posit is the fact that Babylon is depicted as having filled
      Message 2 of 16 , Aug 24, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Of course, I concur with Ed Garcia. One of the things that strikes me as odd
        with the Rome/Babylon posit is the fact that Babylon is depicted as having
        filled the measure of her sin by persecuting the prophets, killing the Lord,
        and killing the apostles. In my book Who Is This Babylon? I demonstrate that
        in Matthew (23:29f), Jesus identified Jerusalem/Israel as guilty of the
        blood of the prophets, they would kill him (21:33f), and his apostles
        (23:33f). In Thessalonians (1:2:15f) Paul reiterates that pattern. Israel
        had killed the prophets, Jesus and were now killing the apostles. It seems
        somewhat incongruous to suggest that John diverts from this earlier pattern,
        for many reasons.
        One that comes to mind immediately is the duration of the persecution of the
        saints.
        Consider that it took Israel centuries to fill up the measure of her sin by
        killing the prophets, Jesus, and his apostles. Her internicine history was
        long, God's patience, even with her bloodguilt was longsuffering. Yet, if
        Babylon was Rome, and if if was written under Domitian, then this means that
        the somewhat brief Neronian persecution, however intense it admittedly was,
        served to bring Rome's bloodguilt to the point of being filled to the brim,
        and that the (questionable) Domitianic persecution put it over the top.
        The timeline suggested by this seems improper. Did it take Israel 1500 years
        to ultimately fill her cup of sin by killing the prophets, but it took Rome
        less than 20 (to just pull a figure out of the hat)?
        I rather suggest that the Old Testament prophecies dealing with the
        bloodguilt for killing the prophets, and the vindication of the martyrs lies
        behind the Apoc. This theme goes all the way back to Abel, to the Song of
        Moses, and throughout the prophetic corpus, to Jesus and finally to John.
        Clearly the vindication of the prophets/ martyrs is what the Apocalypse is
        foccused on. If this is the case, then Jesus' words in Luke 13:31f, "It is
        not possible for a prophet to perish outside of Jerusalem," would seem to
        provide an interpretative key to understanding the Apocalypse.
        Don K
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Ed Garcia <Ed.Garcia@...>
        To: <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 9:17 AM
        Subject: [revelation-list] Rome v Jerusalem


        > I have read the discussions concerning Rome as the great harlot of
        > Revelation with great interest, however I am still unconvinced. The
        > evidence, I believe, points overwhelmingly to Jerusalem as the harlot.
        Rome
        > is an obvious solution but such a conclusion has always struck me as too
        > pat, too clean. I am suspicious. Rome as a solution is obvious but maybe
        too
        > obvious.
        >
        > Here are a few other points to consider. In Rev. 17:6 John is taken to the
        > wilderness marvels to see a harlot drunk with the blood of the saints. To
        > see pagan Rome depicted as a drunken, bloodied and blasphemous harlot
        would
        > be nothing to marvel at, yet John marvels. However if we understand the
        > harlot as Jerusalem then truly we have something to marvel at. Who was the
        > great persecutor of the early church? Starting with the persecution and
        > crucifixion of Jesus, to the apostles in hiding for fear of the Jews, to
        the
        > stoning of Steven, to Saul breathing threats and murder against the
        > disciples of the Lord, to the struggles of the early church with
        Judaizers,
        > to the persecutions of the apostle Paul, to the troubles of the churches
        of
        > Smyrna and Philadelphia in Revelation it is obvious that the greatest
        threat
        > and danger to the infant church was Judaism, symbolized by Jerusalem. To
        > quote St. Paul, "Now we, brethren like Isaac, are children of promise. But
        > as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who
        > was born according to the Spirit, so it is now." In this very same epistle
        > Paul tells us of two Jerusalems. Revelation also speaks of two Jerusalems,
        > one the earthly Jerusalem a harlot the other new Jerusalem coming down out
        > of heaven. These are but a few of my reasons for understanding the harlot
        as
        > Jerusalem.
        >
        > Revelation is the revelation of Jesus Christ the author of our salvation
        and
        > as such it speaks prophetically of the struggle between the old
        dispensation
        > and the new. As for Rome, I do not see that it plays a role of any
        > importance in the book of Revelation. Though I am always open to any other
        > thoughts.
        >
        > Ed Garcia
        > Kansas
        >
        >
        >
        > 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/
        >
        >
        >
      • Phil Mayo
        The arguments as to the identity of Babylon based on Jerusalem s role in persecution of the saints vs. Rome are interesting. I was wondering, however, why no
        Message 3 of 16 , Aug 24, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          The arguments as to the identity of Babylon based on Jerusalem's role in
          persecution of the saints vs. Rome are interesting. I was wondering,
          however, why no mention seems to have been made of Rev 17.9? It is
          difficult to get past this symbolism. The woman is seated on the beast with
          seven heads. The seven heads are identified as seven hills upon which the
          Harlot sits. This seems to strongly suggest Rome, especially since the
          seven heads are also immediately identified also as seven kings. It is
          easier to set Rome in this situation than Jerusalem. Further, ch. 18 seems
          to reinforce this identity. Rome is more likely the one with whom the kings
          of the earth have committed fornication and by whom the merchants of the
          earth have become wealthy (18.3).

          Phil Mayo

          --------------------------------------------------------------------
          Philip L. Mayo
          Ph.D. Candidate, New Testament Studies
          Center for Advanced Theological Studies
          Fuller Theological Seminary
          pjmayo@...
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Don K. Preston" <dkpret@...>
          To: <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 7:36 AM
          Subject: Re: [revelation-list] Rome v Jerusalem


          > Of course, I concur with Ed Garcia. One of the things that strikes me as
          odd
          > with the Rome/Babylon posit is the fact that Babylon is depicted as having
          > filled the measure of her sin by persecuting the prophets, killing the
          Lord,
          > and killing the apostles. In my book Who Is This Babylon? I demonstrate
          that
          > in Matthew (23:29f), Jesus identified Jerusalem/Israel as guilty of the
          > blood of the prophets, they would kill him (21:33f), and his apostles
          > (23:33f). In Thessalonians (1:2:15f) Paul reiterates that pattern. Israel
          > had killed the prophets, Jesus and were now killing the apostles. It seems
          > somewhat incongruous to suggest that John diverts from this earlier
          pattern,
          > for many reasons.
          > One that comes to mind immediately is the duration of the persecution of
          the
          > saints.
          > Consider that it took Israel centuries to fill up the measure of her sin
          by
          > killing the prophets, Jesus, and his apostles. Her internicine history was
          > long, God's patience, even with her bloodguilt was longsuffering. Yet, if
          > Babylon was Rome, and if if was written under Domitian, then this means
          that
          > the somewhat brief Neronian persecution, however intense it admittedly
          was,
          > served to bring Rome's bloodguilt to the point of being filled to the
          brim,
          > and that the (questionable) Domitianic persecution put it over the top.
          > The timeline suggested by this seems improper. Did it take Israel 1500
          years
          > to ultimately fill her cup of sin by killing the prophets, but it took
          Rome
          > less than 20 (to just pull a figure out of the hat)?
          > I rather suggest that the Old Testament prophecies dealing with the
          > bloodguilt for killing the prophets, and the vindication of the martyrs
          lies
          > behind the Apoc. This theme goes all the way back to Abel, to the Song of
          > Moses, and throughout the prophetic corpus, to Jesus and finally to John.
          > Clearly the vindication of the prophets/ martyrs is what the Apocalypse is
          > foccused on. If this is the case, then Jesus' words in Luke 13:31f, "It is
          > not possible for a prophet to perish outside of Jerusalem," would seem to
          > provide an interpretative key to understanding the Apocalypse.
          > Don K
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: Ed Garcia <Ed.Garcia@...>
          > To: <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 9:17 AM
          > Subject: [revelation-list] Rome v Jerusalem
          >
          >
          > > I have read the discussions concerning Rome as the great harlot of
          > > Revelation with great interest, however I am still unconvinced. The
          > > evidence, I believe, points overwhelmingly to Jerusalem as the harlot.
          > Rome
          > > is an obvious solution but such a conclusion has always struck me as too
          > > pat, too clean. I am suspicious. Rome as a solution is obvious but maybe
          > too
          > > obvious.
          > >
          > > Here are a few other points to consider. In Rev. 17:6 John is taken to t
          he
          > > wilderness marvels to see a harlot drunk with the blood of the saints.
          To
          > > see pagan Rome depicted as a drunken, bloodied and blasphemous harlot
          > would
          > > be nothing to marvel at, yet John marvels. However if we understand the
          > > harlot as Jerusalem then truly we have something to marvel at. Who was
          the
          > > great persecutor of the early church? Starting with the persecution and
          > > crucifixion of Jesus, to the apostles in hiding for fear of the Jews, to
          > the
          > > stoning of Steven, to Saul breathing threats and murder against the
          > > disciples of the Lord, to the struggles of the early church with
          > Judaizers,
          > > to the persecutions of the apostle Paul, to the troubles of the
          churches
          > of
          > > Smyrna and Philadelphia in Revelation it is obvious that the greatest
          > threat
          > > and danger to the infant church was Judaism, symbolized by Jerusalem. To
          > > quote St. Paul, "Now we, brethren like Isaac, are children of promise.
          But
          > > as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him
          who
          > > was born according to the Spirit, so it is now." In this very same
          epistle
          > > Paul tells us of two Jerusalems. Revelation also speaks of two
          Jerusalems,
          > > one the earthly Jerusalem a harlot the other new Jerusalem coming down
          out
          > > of heaven. These are but a few of my reasons for understanding the
          harlot
          > as
          > > Jerusalem.
          > >
          > > Revelation is the revelation of Jesus Christ the author of our salvation
          > and
          > > as such it speaks prophetically of the struggle between the old
          > dispensation
          > > and the new. As for Rome, I do not see that it plays a role of any
          > > importance in the book of Revelation. Though I am always open to any
          other
          > > thoughts.
          > >
          > > Ed Garcia
          > > Kansas
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > 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/
          >
          >
          >
        • ksmith@standrews.sa.edu.au
          Dear Ed, ... always struck me as too pat, too clean. I am suspicious. Rome as a solution is obvious but maybe too obvious. Perhaps we make it too difficult
          Message 4 of 16 , Aug 26, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Ed,

            >>>Rome is an obvious solution but such a conclusion has
            always struck me as too pat, too clean. I am suspicious. Rome
            as a solution is obvious but maybe too obvious. >>>

            Perhaps we make it too difficult for ourselves by wanting an
            obscure answer.

            >>>However if we understand the harlot as Jerusalem then truly
            we have something to marvel at.>>>

            I haven't checked it out, but I suspect that John's marvelling is
            probably not because the harlot was Jerusalem. It is likely that it
            was the gaudy beauty and seductiveness of the harlot that made
            him marvel.

            >>>Who was the great persecutor of the early church? Starting
            with the persecution and crucifixion of Jesus, to the apostles in
            hiding for fear of the Jews, to the stoning of Steven, to Saul
            breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord,
            to the struggles of the early church with Judaizers, to the
            persecutions of the apostle Paul, to the troubles of the churches
            of Smyrna and Philadelphia in Revelation it is obvious that the
            greatest threat and danger to the infant church was Judaism,
            symbolized by Jerusalem. >>>

            It is certainly so that the Jews gave the early Church a hard time.
            However, the persecution for which the judgements of Rev 17
            and 18 were given were those globally inflicted upon the
            believers. John was viewing a prophetic vision – as you say -
            and the major events he wrote about had not yet occurred. There
            is a problem here which affects most of our debate, and that is
            the various frameworks within which we see the outworking of
            John's vision and from which we interpret it.

            Primary to my understanding is a twofold fulfillment of the
            Revelation. That is, I think there was an immediate fulfillment
            which the early Church understood as just that. Before it was
            over, they assumed that it was the end and would conclude with
            the return of Christ. Much of the Revelation, then, referred to the
            condition of the Church at that time (especially the Asian church)
            and to Nero, Rome, Jerusalem, etc. Sufficient of the prophecy
            was fulfilled as evidence of that – the Fire of Rome (Rev 18), the
            persecutions of Nero (the sixth king who `is') and so on. Much of
            the Revelation, however, was not fulfilled but awaits the final
            fulfillment with the revealing of the ultimate beast, the great
            tribulation, the mark of the beast and the reappearing of Christ.
            We have troubles understanding the Revelation, I believe, when
            we try to force the whole lot into the first century. Some of it can
            be seen there, but much of it is still to come.

            In that sense I think that `Babylon' is the centre of the empire or
            the world system. That was Rome in the first century (Phil Mayo's
            post #28 re Rev 17:9 is important here), it is likely to be
            somewhere quite different when the end is finally upon us – it
            may not be a literal city at all. Wherever or what ever it is, it will be
            clear to the faithful of the day who will need to know.

            >>>To quote St. Paul, "Now we, brethren like Isaac, are children
            of promise. But as at that time he who was born according to the
            flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it
            is now." In this very same epistle Paul tells us of two
            Jerusalems. Revelation also speaks of two Jerusalems, one the
            earthly Jerusalem a harlot the other new Jerusalem coming
            down out of heaven. These are but a few of my reasons for
            understanding the harlot as Jerusalem.

            Revelation is the revelation of Jesus Christ the author of our
            salvation and as such it speaks prophetically of the struggle
            between the old dispensation and the new. As for Rome, I do not
            see that it plays a role of any importance in the book of
            Revelation. >>>

            Paul does mention two Jerusalems, and Hebrews speaks of a
            city "whose builder and maker is God" (11:10). But he is referring
            primarily to the people of the old and new covenants – as is the
            Revelation. Jerusalem, certainly the New Jerusalem (which is
            the Bride! – Rev 21:2) is not to be restricted to a physical city. It is
            not even a city, as such, but the people of faith from all history.
            Both Jerusalems exist/ed in a hostile world and were/are
            responsible to glorify God in the world.

            God judges the world also for the way it has treated his people,
            and the world (Babylon) is identified with the dominant world
            power – which was Rome and the Roman Empire at the time the
            Revelation was given What it will be when the end comes is not
            yet clear, though it will be both global and economic (Rev
            13:11-18).

            Sincerely,

            Kym Smith
            Adelaide
            South Australia
            khs@...
          • Georg S. Adamsen
            Dear list members I am not sure that Babylon should be equated with Jerusalem or Rome. One of the obstacles to both interpretations is the the structure of
            Message 5 of 16 , Sep 2, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear list members

              I am not sure that Babylon should be equated with Jerusalem or Rome. One
              of the obstacles to both interpretations is the the structure of
              Revelation (cf. Giblin's analyses) and an article published by Gundry
              many years ago, although I am not sure whether they draw the same
              conclusions as I do. I have no access to my literature right now, but I
              hope that my memory serves me in the following).

              There is a clear parallel between the whore Babylon and the bride, the
              New Jerusalem, as shown by, e.g., Giblin. Gundry argued that the New
              Jerusalem is not a place for people, but people described as place. Now,
              most scholars, I think, will admit that the New Jerusalem describes the
              glorified people of God. Personally, I don't think that there are other
              viable solutions.

              Edith Humphrey argues that the one woman, Babylon, gives place to
              another woman, the New Jerusalem. Thus, it must be important to
              determine whether Babylon is contemporary with the New Jerusalem or it
              precedes it.

              I think that the parallel structure supports the former view. Thus, if
              the New Jerusalem is the glorified people of God, the bride of the Lamb,
              then it seems quite likely that Babylon is the opposite: the people who
              after the parousia is not glorified. Babylon is thus the non-glorified
              people, i.e. those who are not the bride of the Lamb. These two peoples
              are the only options available in Revelation. Tertium non datur.

              If this analysis is correct, then Babylon should not be equated with
              Jerusalem, especially not with the AD 70-Jerusalem. Neither should it be
              identified with Rome. Rather, it is the end of worldly kingdom (as
              11:15-18 indeed indicates).

              If Babylon is the "wordly kingdom", opposed to the divine kingdom, then
              this explains why the portryal of Babylon alludes to the OT Babylon (cf.
              a recent article by Iain Provan), Tyre and comtemporary Rome (if it
              indeed does so). It even makes sense that the depiction of Babylon
              alludes to some Jerusalem-texts, as Jerusalem was not immune from the
              judgment of God, even if she was the dwelling-place of God according to
              the OT.

              I guess this is a controversial analysis ...

              I look forward to hearing what you think.

              Georg (S. Adamsen, LSTA)


              Literature:

              Giblin, Charles Homer. "Structural and Thematic Correlations in the
              Theology of Revelation 16--22." Bib 55 (1974): 487-504.

              Gundry, Robert H. "The New Jerusalem: People As Place, Not Place for
              People." NovT 29 (1987): 254-64.

              Humphrey, Edith McEwan.The Ladies and the Cities: Transformation and
              Apocalyptic Identity in Joseph and Aseneth, 4 Ezra, the Apocalypse and
              The Shepherd of Hermas. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha
              Supplement Series 17. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.
            • ksmith@standrews.sa.edu.au
              Dear Georg, My position is that the Revelation is (at least) double layered. There was a fulfilment - or partial fulfilment - of the Rev n which those to whom
              Message 6 of 16 , Sep 2, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Georg,

                My position is that the Revelation is (at least) double layered.
                There was a fulfilment - or partial fulfilment - of the Rev'n which
                those to whom it was given (i.e. the apostolic Church)
                experienced and understood as its fulfilment. Dating the Rev. as
                I do (i.e. 62), the Church anticipated a fulfilment. Indeed, it
                expected a complete fulfilment. They understood that Nero was
                the beast; that Rome, as the centre of the empire and current
                world system was the harlot on the seven hills; and that Jesus
                would return after a brief (42 month) period of state-led
                persecution.

                Some of the things they believed the Rev'n spoke about had
                some fulfilment - Nero's nastiness, the burning of Rome (Rev
                18), a period of severe persecution.

                However, the double layered nature of the vision was such that it
                also spoke of the real end and the events/persons preceding the
                actual parousia - events yet to happen.

                In that case, I am quite in agreement with you when you say that
                the Babylon may not be Rome or Jerusalem. For the immediate
                context in which it was given, Rome was Babylon. For the
                ultimate fulfilment, Babylon will be the world system of that day. A
                system which will probably have political, financial and religious
                elements. This is what I was saying in post #30 (I think) where I
                said:
                "Nevertheless, the Revelation passages are dealing with the
                global suffering of the saints and a world system. Rome was
                the centre of that in John's day, but it seems to me that the `local'
                (i.e. Roman Empire) fulfilment of the Apocalypse was not the
                end. It gave the setting into which the Revelation could be given
                and make a reasonable amount of sense in its time, but it
                looked forward to a truly world system which is yet to be
                manifest. Nero was `a' beast, but `the Beast' and the great
                tribulation which precedes the parousia are yet to be revealed."

                I think you are also right in your assessment and/or quotes that:
                >>>There is a clear parallel between the whore Babylon and the
                bride, the New Jerusalem, as shown by, e.g., Giblin. Gundry
                argued that the New Jerusalem is not a place for people, but
                people described as place. Now, most scholars, I think, will
                admit that the New Jerusalem describes the glorified people of
                God. Personally, I don't think that there are other viable
                solutions.>>>

                Sincerely,

                Kym Smith
                Adelaide
                South Australia
                khs@...
              • Marko Jauhiainen
                Dear Georg & others, ... Could you be more specific with regard to the relationship of NJ and the (glorified) people of God? Would you equate the two (as some
                Message 7 of 16 , Sep 3, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Georg & others,

                  On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, Georg S. Adamsen wrote:

                  > Now,
                  > most scholars, I think, will admit that the New Jerusalem describes the
                  > glorified people of God.

                  Could you be more specific with regard to the relationship of NJ and the
                  (glorified) people of God? Would you equate the two (as some seem to do)
                  or how exactly would you describe their relationship?

                  Shalom,

                  Marko
                • Ian Paul
                  ... The question here is where are you locating your interpretation? Is it in the mind of the writer, the first audience, or the 21st century reader? For John,
                  Message 8 of 16 , Sep 3, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Georg wrote:

                    >If this analysis is correct, then Babylon should not be equated with
                    >Jerusalem, especially not with the AD 70-Jerusalem. Neither should it be
                    >identified with Rome. Rather, it is the end of worldly kingdom (as
                    >11:15-18 indeed indicates).

                    The question here is where are you locating your interpretation? Is it in
                    the mind of the writer, the first audience, or the 21st century reader? For
                    John, the end of worldly kingdom would surely have been almost exactly the
                    same thing as the end of the Roman Empire. (Compare Paul's language about
                    the gospel being preached 'in all the world', by which he means, the whole
                    Roman Empire.)

                    At the level of language, this 'split reference' (to Rome (?) and to all
                    empire) corresponds to the nature of the metaphorical language. If John did
                    have Rome in mind (whatever that means) in coining this metaphor, its
                    meaning is not exhausted by the reference to Rome alone--there is a 'surplus
                    of meaning'. However, this does involve locating the meaning of the text in
                    the mind of subsequent readers at least to some extent, which not everyone
                    will be happy with.

                    Ian Paul
                    .......................
                    Revd Dr Ian Paul 32 Penn Hill Avenue, Poole, Dorset BH14 9LZ
                    01202 745963 fax 01202 385539
                  • Georg S. Adamsen
                    Yes, the New Jerusalem is equated with the Bride of the Lamb (21:9f) and she comes down from/out of heaven (21:2; cf. 3:12). Since 21:1 has just announced the
                    Message 9 of 16 , Sep 4, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Yes, the New Jerusalem is equated with the Bride of the Lamb (21:9f)
                      and she comes down from/out of heaven (21:2; cf. 3:12). Since 21:1
                      has just announced the new heaven and earth and 19:7 and 9 refer to
                      the wedding (day) of the Lamb (while 19:1-6 celebrates the fall of
                      Babylon and God's revenge of this city and its associates), it seems
                      clear to me that the bride of the Lamb is the glorified people of
                      God. It is _a_ people, as Gundry argued. It is thus the glorified
                      people of God depicted corporatively. The wedding guests motif, by
                      the way, expresses the individual perspective, I think.

                      Hope this is helpful.

                      Georg (S. Adamsen, LSTA)


                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Marko Jauhiainen [mailto:vmj21@...]On Behalf Of
                      Marko
                      Jauhiainen
                      Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 11:19 AM
                      To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [revelation-list] New Jerusalem (RE: Rome v Jerusalem)



                      Dear Georg & others,

                      On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, Georg S. Adamsen wrote:

                      > Now,
                      > most scholars, I think, will admit that the New Jerusalem
                      describes the
                      > glorified people of God.

                      Could you be more specific with regard to the relationship of NJ and
                      the
                      (glorified) people of God? Would you equate the two (as some seem to
                      do)
                      or how exactly would you describe their relationship?

                      Shalom,

                      Marko


                      ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
                      Sponsor ---------------------~-->
                      FREE COLLEGE MONEY
                      CLICK HERE to search
                      600,000 scholarships!
                      http://us.click.yahoo.com/47cccB/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/J2VolB/TM
                      --------------------------------------------------------------------
                      -~->

                      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 S. Adamsen
                      I hesitate to say that for John, something would surely have ... when this is the very issue under discussion. This is an exegetical issue. It is the text
                      Message 10 of 16 , Sep 4, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I hesitate to say that "for John, something would surely have ..."
                        when this is the very issue under discussion. This is an exegetical
                        issue. It is the text which we must explain. I pointed to a few
                        textual observations.

                        I agree that the end of worldly kingdom would include the end of the
                        Roman empire. Naturally so. However, I do not agree that the
                        Biblical authors, including John, were unaware of other nations and
                        political powers. There are many references to them in the Bible,
                        and the Roman Empire had commercial relations with, e.g., China. The
                        very fact that people knew that the Roman Empire was often attacked
                        by other nations (and this is something which many interpreters
                        usually take for granted, and rightly so) supports my claim. We
                        should not make ancient people more unaware of their world than
                        necessary. Why should Paul not be aware of this fact as well? So,
                        the opposition between the bride of the Lamb, the New Jerusalem, and
                        the whore, the fallen Babylon, indicates that the end of worldly
                        kingdom (the end of Babylon) is more than, not exactly the same
                        thing as the end of the Roman Empire. Naturally, to John and the
                        first recipients, the end of wordly kingdom/Babylon would mean the
                        end of the Roman Empire in particular. What it first and foremost
                        means for 21st century readers depends on our context. For
                        persecuted Chinese christians, it means first of all the fall of the
                        Chinese empire. Etc. However, I did not write about the pragmatic
                        level.

                        My point was to call attention to a textual issue (structure and
                        content).

                        Georg (S. Adamsen, LSTA)



                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Ian Paul [mailto:ian.b.paul@...]
                        Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 12:57 PM
                        To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: RE: [revelation-list] Rome v Jerusalem



                        Georg wrote:

                        >If this analysis is correct, then Babylon should not be equated
                        with
                        >Jerusalem, especially not with the AD 70-Jerusalem. Neither should
                        it be
                        >identified with Rome. Rather, it is the end of worldly kingdom (as
                        >11:15-18 indeed indicates).

                        The question here is where are you locating your interpretation? Is
                        it in
                        the mind of the writer, the first audience, or the 21st century
                        reader? For
                        John, the end of worldly kingdom would surely have been almost
                        exactly the
                        same thing as the end of the Roman Empire. (Compare Paul's language
                        about
                        the gospel being preached 'in all the world', by which he means, the
                        whole
                        Roman Empire.)

                        At the level of language, this 'split reference' (to Rome (?) and to
                        all
                        empire) corresponds to the nature of the metaphorical language. If
                        John did
                        have Rome in mind (whatever that means) in coining this metaphor,
                        its
                        meaning is not exhausted by the reference to Rome alone--there is a
                        'surplus
                        of meaning'. However, this does involve locating the meaning of the
                        text in
                        the mind of subsequent readers at least to some extent, which not
                        everyone
                        will be happy with.

                        Ian Paul
                      • Marko Jauhiainen
                        ... Thanks for the clarification, Georg. I do not wish to address Gundry s article here, but let me explain what I had in my mind when I asked you to be more
                        Message 11 of 16 , Sep 4, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 4 Sep 2001, at 9:27, Georg S. Adamsen wrote:

                          > Yes, the New Jerusalem is equated with the Bride of the Lamb (21:9f)
                          > and she comes down from/out of heaven (21:2; cf. 3:12). Since 21:1
                          > has just announced the new heaven and earth and 19:7 and 9 refer to
                          > the wedding (day) of the Lamb (while 19:1-6 celebrates the fall of
                          > Babylon and God's revenge of this city and its associates), it seems
                          > clear to me that the bride of the Lamb is the glorified people of
                          > God. It is _a_ people, as Gundry argued. It is thus the glorified
                          > people of God depicted corporatively. The wedding guests motif, by
                          > the way, expresses the individual perspective, I think.

                          Thanks for the clarification, Georg. I do not wish to address
                          Gundry's article here, but let me explain what I had in my mind
                          when I asked you to be more explicit:

                          In the OT, "Jerusalem" is used for the city of Jerusalem, but it can
                          also be used to connote its inhabitants (cf. the use of "Zion" esp. in
                          Isaiah). The image of Jerusalem (or Zion) as the bride of Yahweh
                          occurs several times in Isaiah (ch. 54 being especially relevant to
                          our discussion). Yet though the author(s) of Isaiah use(s)
                          "Jerusalem" when he is really concerned about its inhabitants, it
                          does not follow that Jerusalem == the people who live in
                          Jerusalem. While there is a close relationship between the two (I
                          cannot remember the correct literary term; synecdoche?
                          metonymy?) they are not identical.

                          Could this also be the case in Revelation?

                          Shalom,

                          Marko
                        • Newell, Terry-Michael
                          Some time ago on this list, reference was made to the New Jerusalem, not as a place for people, but describing people as a place. What/who is the origin of
                          Message 12 of 16 , Apr 15, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            New Jerusalem

                            Some time ago on this list, reference was made to the New Jerusalem, not as "a place for people," but describing "people as a place." What/who is the origin of this line of thinking and where could I further develop this thought?

                            Sincerely,
                            Terry-Michael Newell

                            ********************************
                            Terry-Michael Newell, Jr.
                            Campus Minister
                            Campbell University
                            Buies Creek, North Carolina
                            (910) 893-1547
                            ********************************

                          • John W. Marshall
                            New JerusalemTerry, I would look to Jonathon Z. Smith, but the exact reference of the article escapes me at the moment. Perhaps another member of our list has
                            Message 13 of 16 , Apr 15, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              New Jerusalem
                              Terry,
                               
                              I would look to Jonathon Z. Smith, but the exact reference of the article escapes me at the moment.  Perhaps another member of our list has it at hand.
                               
                               --jwm
                              _____________________________________________________________________
                              John W. Marshall                               Assistant Professor
                                                                                      Department for the Study of Religion
                                                                                      University of Toronto
                              john.marshall@...                416.978.8122
                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Newell, Terry-Michael [mailto:newell@...]
                              Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 3:13 PM
                              To: Revelation-List Group (E-mail)
                              Subject: [revelation-list] New Jerusalem

                              Some time ago on this list, reference was made to the New Jerusalem, not as "a place for people," but describing "people as a place." What/who is the origin of this line of thinking and where could I further develop this thought?

                              Sincerely,
                              Terry-Michael Newell

                              ********************************
                              Terry-Michael Newell, Jr.
                              Campus Minister
                              Campbell University
                              Buies Creek, North Carolina
                              (910) 893-1547
                              ********************************



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



                              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                            • profram@aol.com
                              Message 14 of 16 , Apr 15, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                              • profram@aol.com
                                Yes, the terminology comes from Robert H. Gundry, The New Jerusalem: People as Place, not Place for People, Novum Testamentum 29 (1987), 254-64. Sorry, I just
                                Message 15 of 16 , Apr 15, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Yes, the terminology comes from Robert H. Gundry, "The New Jerusalem: People
                                  as Place, not Place for People, Novum Testamentum 29 (1987), 254-64.

                                  Sorry, I just sent an empty post by accident. This is the one I was trying to
                                  send.

                                  Ramsey Michaels
                                • Dave Mathewson
                                  There is a well-known article with a similar title by Robert Gundry entitled, The New Jerusalem: People as Place, not Place for People , NovT 29 (1987), pp.
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Apr 15, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    There is a well-known article with a similar title by Robert Gundry
                                    entitled, 'The New Jerusalem: People as Place, not Place for People', NovT
                                    29 (1987), pp. 254-62.

                                    Dave Mathewson



                                    _________________________________________________________________
                                    Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.