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

Re: [revelation-list] Rome v Jerusalem

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 of 16 , Apr 15 12:13 PM
                        • 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 12 of 16 , Apr 15 1:27 PM
                          • 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 13 of 16 , Apr 15 1:39 PM
                            • 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 14 of 16 , Apr 15 1:43 PM
                              • 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 15 of 16 , Apr 15 2:58 PM
                                • 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.