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

RE: [revelation-list] Re: The Revelation: A Redating?

Expand Messages
  • Don Myers
    I would like to recieve it. Don Myers ... From: Alan Missen [mailto:westhaven@paradise.net.nz] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 5:32 PM To:
    Message 1 of 27 , Aug 25, 2001
      I would like to recieve it.
       
        Don Myers
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Alan Missen [mailto:westhaven@...]
      Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 5:32 PM
      To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [revelation-list] Re: The Revelation: A Redating?

      Dear Kym and list members
       
      Since we are discussing the date of Revelation and related matters, I have proposed a date around AD 87, in a MTh thesis recently submitted to University of Otago, NZ.
       
      The thesis is entitled "Worship and Witness in the Apocalypse."
       
      I have the chapter, which speculatively argues for a dating earlier in Domitian's reign than previously proposed, available in rtf format (about 120KB) if any member would like an electronic copy).
       
      Regards
      Alan Missen
       
       
      Alan and Sue Missen
      31 Westhaven Drive
      Tawa, Wellington
      New Zealand
      Ph. 64-4-232-5772


      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.
    • John M. Sweigart
      Dear Otto: Good to see that you are still active and I am glad the list has become active again. Interestingly, I heard Grant Jeffrey say this past December
      Message 2 of 27 , Aug 26, 2001

        Dear Otto:

         

        Good to see that you are still active and I am glad the list has become active again.  Interestingly, I heard Grant Jeffrey say this past December that in his next book he will list evidence suggesting a date for the martyrdom of Antipas.  Will that settle the dating debate or will it continue?  One thing that has interested me of late is the fact that all of the series of sevens begin in the heavenly temple.  Does this suggest the earthly temple has been destroyed?

         

        John

         

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Otto Erlend Nordgreen [mailto:otto.nordgreen@...]
        Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 3:08 PM
        To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [revelation-list] Re: Babylon: Rome or Jerusalem

         

        Dear Kym,

        my view on the date of the Apocalypse might be read at

        http://folk.uio.no/otton/Prea70.html

        I still opt for a ‘late’ date. But I think it's possible to argue for any date from, say, ca. 60 - 110 CE. Regarding the identity of "Babylon (the great)", I think an early date is possible for both Rome and Jerusalem. I do, however, feel that a late date would be likely only for Rome as "Babylon".

        I would be interested in how you identify the 7 (8) emperors in Rev 17 within your perspective.

        Best wishes,

        Otto Erlend Nordgreen


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


        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.

      • ksmith@standrews.sa.edu.au
        Dear Don, Sorry if this response is a bit disjointed. I have had about four goes at completing it. I might be starting to spread myself a bit thin! I agree
        Message 3 of 27 , Aug 26, 2001
          Dear Don,

          Sorry if this response is a bit disjointed. I have had about four
          goes at completing it. I might be starting to spread myself a bit
          thin!

          I agree that the persecutions of 1 Peter were, as you say, "not
          totally future", but they were not without a future aspect. Further,
          Peter does not seem to be talking about persecution generally,
          he appears to have a definite, short period of persecution in
          mind. His `fiery ordeal' of 4:12 will last the `little while' of 1:6.
          Besides this, if the Revelation had already been given – as I
          claim – then the Church had begun to prepare itself for the
          anticipated, state-sanctioned persecution (of 42 months duration
          – a `little while' in the cosmic scheme of things). The
          anticipation, itself, was effectively part of the suffering. The full
          horror may not have begun yet, but they were already feeling it,
          knowing that at any time it could begin.

          Added to this is that each time Peter mentions the impeding
          sufferings, he has in mind that they will be concluded with the
          return of Christ and the vindication and glorification of the saints
          (for 1:6 see 1:7; for 4:12 see 4:13; for 5:9 see 5:10. Following 4:1f
          Peter says `The end of all things is at hand').
          While Peter is aware of the suffering of the faithful – no doubt he
          suffered considerably himself – he seems to have in mind here
          a precise period which would precede the parousia.

          I do not see that verses that you quote (1 Pet 1:5-7; 5:10 and Rev
          6:9f; 16:7f and 18:20-24) and the "martry vindication" as
          harkening back to Matthew 23 and Israel's filling up of her
          measure of sin. I expect she had done that well and truly with the
          rejection and crucifixion of Christ. Those to whom Peter wrote,
          who were about to suffer and then be vindicated, were not in
          Israel but in Asia Minor. Even the reference to the Dispersion
          (1:1) should be read to mean that he was writing to Jews only. It
          is true that Israel (as per Matt 23) was to be judged, and that is
          consistent with God's dealings with her right through the Old
          Testament – how much more now that she had refused the
          Messiah. Israel was God's covenant people, to them alone he
          had given the great things of Romans 9:4-5. Through that nation
          God intended to bless all nations (Gen 12:1-3) but Israel had
          constantly refused God's blessing and was, now, about to be
          judged. 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.

          Because of this, I do not need to fit everything into the one piece
          of history. Enough happened to convince the Church that they
          were seeing the very last things, the burning of Rome, Nero's
          nastiness, the execution of at least two apostles – Peter and
          Paul – and many who held the testimony of Jesus. But even they
          must have wondered as Rome began to rise out of the ashes
          and be rebuilt, as Nero died after 42 months of persecution but
          not with the return of Christ and so on.

          The martyrs, then, are from among the faithful (i.e. the Church),
          not just Israel. "Saints and prophets" (16:6) refers to the faithful
          of all ages, but especially the Church We are told in 19:10, "The
          testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy". The prophets, then,
          are not confined to those sent to Israel, and we know that Paul
          addressed that rabbly bunch at Corinth as "saints".

          While Matt 23 may refer to Israel, Matt 24 is mainly concerned
          with global events, global tribulation, global judgments.
          Reference is made to Judea and its particular judgment, but that
          stands along side the global. Judea might see its judgment
          soon – as it did in 70 – but the global tribulation is not yet.

          There is certainly a problem when each of us speaks out of our
          own framework, but I guess there is little else that we can do.
          Knowing each other's frameworks is probably helpful.

          Sincerely,

          Kym Smith
          Adelaide
          South Australia
          khs@...




          --- In revelation-list@y..., "Don K. Preston" <dkpret@b...> wrote:
          > A few thoughts very quickly.
          > First, it seems to me that the persecution of 1 Peter was not
          totally > future. In 4:12, Peter told his readers not to marvel at the
          fiery trial > "that is among you" (en humin purosei), it was even
          then happening > (ginomenen).
          > Second, the concept of martry vindication in 1 Peter (1:5-7;
          5:10), and > Revelation (6:9f; 16:7f; 18:20-24), harkens back to
          Matthew 23, and Jesus' > prediction that it was Israel that would
          fill the measure of her sin in that > generation, by persecuting
          those sent by him.
          > Third, in Matthew 23, Jesus limited the locus and temporal
          limit of the > filling up of the measure of sin/persecution. He
          limited it to his > generation and the killing of the apostles and
          prophets sent by him. He > further limited the culpability for those
          killings to Israel.
          > John agrees with this, by noting that Babylon had filled her cup
          of sin by > killing the apostles and prophets (Apoc. 18:20, 24).
          John does not carry the > motif of the persecuted beyond those
          designated ones, and he lays the blame > at the feet of the city
          "where the Lord was slain." (11:8).
          > Interestingly, Paul surely seems to agree with Jesus' teaching
          when he > claims a distinctive role in filling the measure of the
          sufferings of Christ > (Colossians 1:24), and by stating that "God
          has set forth us, the apostles, > last of all, as men condemned
          to die" (1 Corinthians 4:9).
          >
        • Ian Paul
          ... Babylon . I am very attracted by David Aune s understanding of the composition of Revelation to explain the disagreements about date. He postulates that
          Message 4 of 27 , Aug 28, 2001
            Otto Nordgreen wrote:

            >I still opt for a 'late' date. But I think it's possible to argue for any
            >date from, say, ca. 60 - 110 CE. Regarding the identity of "Babylon (the
            >great)", I think an early date is possible for both Rome and Jerusalem. I
            >do, however, feel that a late date would be likely only for Rome as
            "Babylon".

            I am very attracted by David Aune's understanding of the composition of
            Revelation to explain the disagreements about date. He postulates that the
            different sections of Revelation were originally different visions from
            different dates brought together by an editor. This explains why some parts
            might look early, and others late.

            [I ought to add that I find this exegetically useless, as, in contrast with
            source criticism of the gospels where we do have separate documents, the
            interpretative argument is viciously circular. We only know where the
            'joins' are by detecting what we judge to be literary incompetencies by the
            editor.]

            Ian Paul
            .......................
            Revd Dr Ian Paul 32 Penn Hill Avenue, Poole, Dorset BH14 9LZ
            01202 745963 fax 01202 385539
          • ksmith@standrews.sa.edu.au
            Dear Ian, You wrote, ... composition of Revelation to explain the disagreements about date. He postulates that the different sections of Revelation were
            Message 5 of 27 , Aug 28, 2001
              Dear Ian,

              You wrote,


              >>> I am very attracted by David Aune's understanding of the
              composition of > Revelation to explain the disagreements about
              date. He postulates that the > different sections of Revelation
              were originally different visions from > different dates brought
              together by an editor. This explains why some parts > might look
              early, and others late.>>>

              David Aune is not the only one proposing a two stage
              development of the Revelation. Robert Moberly also suggests
              something similar in his article, "When was the Revelation
              Conceived". I think it is listed in Alan Missens's article. I have
              proposed a two stage idea as well. However, mine does not see
              any change or development of the text.

              From the giving of the Revelation – in 62, as I see it – very few
              copies of the book were made. I suspect that few, other than
              apostles, actually had a copy. This is because of the politically
              sensitive nature of the vision. No Roman could read it without
              seeing as anti-empire. It was not safe to have the work
              circulating freely.

              Following the death of Nero and the subsequent realisation by
              the Church that the Revelation was not restricted to that time
              alone (i.e. there would be a `final fulfilment' of the apocalypse), I
              believe that the apostles decided to `shelve' the book until it was
              needed. My hunch is that John believed that he would still be
              around for long enough at least to identify the ultimate Beast,
              and hence the discussion between Peter and Jesus re the
              Beloved Disciple in John 21:20-23 (i.e. the Gospel of John was
              written after the Revelation in 68). Having identified the Beast,
              John was to re-release the book for those who had to face the
              last things. Should the Beast not become obvious, some
              provision would have been made to get the book out again
              anyway. In his old age, John may have thought that Domitian
              was the most likely candidate, or he may have just realised that
              he was not going to be around long enough, and so he released
              the book again to ensure its survival until it was needed.

              In this way Irenaeus' comments about the late release of the
              Revelation make sense at the same time as the Revelation fits
              best in the time of Nero..

              Kym Smith
              Adelaide
              South Australia
              khs@...
            • Don K. Preston
              Kym, just a brief note or two. I fully agree that Peter has in mind vindication of the martyrs at the parousia. However, I do not believe that Peter s concept
              Message 6 of 27 , Aug 30, 2001
                Kym, just a brief note or two.
                I fully agree that Peter has in mind vindication of the martyrs at the
                parousia. However, I do not believe that Peter's concept of the parousia was
                a literal cosmic event, to bring earth's history to an end. The concept of
                the Day of the Lord is an in-time, historical event in which Jehovah--or in
                the Apocalypse, Jesus revealed as "pantokratoros", manifested Himself.
                The "cosmic disturbances" language is metaphorical.
                I do not feel that the pattern found in Matthew and Thessalonians has been
                addresssed. Jesus blamed Israel for killing the prophets, him, and his
                apostles. Paul blamed Israel for killing the prophets, Jesus and the
                apostles. The Apocalypse blames Babylon for killing the prophets, Jesus, and
                the apostles. I find this quite compelling, and see no reason to discount
                it.
                As for whether Israel's measure of guilt was filled by the crucifixion,
                Jesus looked beyond that event in Matthew 23, to the persecution of those
                whom he was to send. Further, writing sometime later, Paul also included the
                persecution of the apostles in the process of filling Israel's guilt, and
                the Apocalypse does the same. It is the martyrdom of the apostles that
                serves as the crucial final bit of persecution.
                Further, Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 4:9 is very significant in light
                of what Jesus had to say in Matthew 23, Luke 13:31f, etc. The picture of
                Revelation 18:20-24 fits the bill rather nicely, Babylon's guilt was filled
                by the persecution of the apostles last of all.
                To delineate between the promises judgment of Matthew 23 and that of Matthew
                24 on the basis of the anticipated cosmic disturbances and global
                tribulation I think misses the incredible covenantal significance of the
                fall of Jerusalem (I think N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God; and
                Scot McKnight, A New Vision for Israel, have done some excellent work in
                this area recently).
                Historically, the "local" judgments against ancient Babylon (Isaiah 13),
                Edom (Isaiah 34-->Jer. 25--->Malachi 1:2-3), Assyria (Isaiah 30:30), Israel
                (Zephaniah 1--->Lamentations 2:1), etc. were all described in "decreation
                language" the language of cosmic disturbances, and yet there is no reason to
                look beyond the historical judgments of those nations for fulfillment. I am
                currently finishing a MSS (In the Glory of the Father) to explore and
                present this material.
                Finally, to understand that the first century Jews thought of the Temple as
                "heaven and earth" (Josephus Ant. 3:6) helps to understand the highly
                wrought, "universal" language foretelling the destruction of that city and
                its Temple.
                Well, I have gone on long enough, much to do.
                Don K

                ----- Original Message -----
                From: <ksmith@...>
                To: <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 9:24 PM
                Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Babylon: Rome or Jerusalem


                > Dear Don,
                >
                > Sorry if this response is a bit disjointed. I have had about four
                > goes at completing it. I might be starting to spread myself a bit
                > thin!
                >
                > I agree that the persecutions of 1 Peter were, as you say, "not
                > totally future", but they were not without a future aspect. Further,
                > Peter does not seem to be talking about persecution generally,
                > he appears to have a definite, short period of persecution in
                > mind. His `fiery ordeal' of 4:12 will last the `little while' of 1:6.
                > Besides this, if the Revelation had already been given - as I
                > claim - then the Church had begun to prepare itself for the
                > anticipated, state-sanctioned persecution (of 42 months duration
                > - a `little while' in the cosmic scheme of things). The
                > anticipation, itself, was effectively part of the suffering. The full
                > horror may not have begun yet, but they were already feeling it,
                > knowing that at any time it could begin.
                >
                > Added to this is that each time Peter mentions the impeding
                > sufferings, he has in mind that they will be concluded with the
                > return of Christ and the vindication and glorification of the saints
                > (for 1:6 see 1:7; for 4:12 see 4:13; for 5:9 see 5:10. Following 4:1f
                > Peter says `The end of all things is at hand').
                > While Peter is aware of the suffering of the faithful - no doubt he
                > suffered considerably himself - he seems to have in mind here
                > a precise period which would precede the parousia.
                >
                > I do not see that verses that you quote (1 Pet 1:5-7; 5:10 and Rev
                > 6:9f; 16:7f and 18:20-24) and the "martry vindication" as
                > harkening back to Matthew 23 and Israel's filling up of her
                > measure of sin. I expect she had done that well and truly with the
                > rejection and crucifixion of Christ. Those to whom Peter wrote,
                > who were about to suffer and then be vindicated, were not in
                > Israel but in Asia Minor. Even the reference to the Dispersion
                > (1:1) should be read to mean that he was writing to Jews only. It
                > is true that Israel (as per Matt 23) was to be judged, and that is
                > consistent with God's dealings with her right through the Old
                > Testament - how much more now that she had refused the
                > Messiah. Israel was God's covenant people, to them alone he
                > had given the great things of Romans 9:4-5. Through that nation
                > God intended to bless all nations (Gen 12:1-3) but Israel had
                > constantly refused God's blessing and was, now, about to be
                > judged. 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.
                >
                > Because of this, I do not need to fit everything into the one piece
                > of history. Enough happened to convince the Church that they
                > were seeing the very last things, the burning of Rome, Nero's
                > nastiness, the execution of at least two apostles - Peter and
                > Paul - and many who held the testimony of Jesus. But even they
                > must have wondered as Rome began to rise out of the ashes
                > and be rebuilt, as Nero died after 42 months of persecution but
                > not with the return of Christ and so on.
                >
                > The martyrs, then, are from among the faithful (i.e. the Church),
                > not just Israel. "Saints and prophets" (16:6) refers to the faithful
                > of all ages, but especially the Church We are told in 19:10, "The
                > testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy". The prophets, then,
                > are not confined to those sent to Israel, and we know that Paul
                > addressed that rabbly bunch at Corinth as "saints".
                >
                > While Matt 23 may refer to Israel, Matt 24 is mainly concerned
                > with global events, global tribulation, global judgments.
                > Reference is made to Judea and its particular judgment, but that
                > stands along side the global. Judea might see its judgment
                > soon - as it did in 70 - but the global tribulation is not yet.
                >
                > There is certainly a problem when each of us speaks out of our
                > own framework, but I guess there is little else that we can do.
                > Knowing each other's frameworks is probably helpful.
                >
                > Sincerely,
                >
                > Kym Smith
                > Adelaide
                > South Australia
                > khs@...
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > --- In revelation-list@y..., "Don K. Preston" <dkpret@b...> wrote:
                > > A few thoughts very quickly.
                > > First, it seems to me that the persecution of 1 Peter was not
                > totally > future. In 4:12, Peter told his readers not to marvel at the
                > fiery trial > "that is among you" (en humin purosei), it was even
                > then happening > (ginomenen).
                > > Second, the concept of martry vindication in 1 Peter (1:5-7;
                > 5:10), and > Revelation (6:9f; 16:7f; 18:20-24), harkens back to
                > Matthew 23, and Jesus' > prediction that it was Israel that would
                > fill the measure of her sin in that > generation, by persecuting
                > those sent by him.
                > > Third, in Matthew 23, Jesus limited the locus and temporal
                > limit of the > filling up of the measure of sin/persecution. He
                > limited it to his > generation and the killing of the apostles and
                > prophets sent by him. He > further limited the culpability for those
                > killings to Israel.
                > > John agrees with this, by noting that Babylon had filled her cup
                > of sin by > killing the apostles and prophets (Apoc. 18:20, 24).
                > John does not carry the > motif of the persecuted beyond those
                > designated ones, and he lays the blame > at the feet of the city
                > "where the Lord was slain." (11:8).
                > > Interestingly, Paul surely seems to agree with Jesus' teaching
                > when he > claims a distinctive role in filling the measure of the
                > sufferings of Christ > (Colossians 1:24), and by stating that "God
                > has set forth us, the apostles, > last of all, as men condemned
                > to die" (1 Corinthians 4:9).
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                > 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 Don, Thanks for your continued pushing. It is god for all. Once again I have had to find several periods to put an answer together. I am sure that you are
                Message 7 of 27 , Sep 2, 2001
                  Dear Don,

                  Thanks for your continued pushing. It is god for all. Once again I
                  have had to find several periods to put an answer together.

                  I am sure that you are right when you say that much of the language
                  concerning the last things is metaphorical. But that does not mean
                  that it is all metaphorical or that, being metaphorical, that
                  necessarily excludes the idea that it is pointing to a real, cosmic
                  event.

                  >>> I do not feel that the pattern found in Matthew and Thessalonians
                  has been addressed. Jesus blamed Israel for killing the prophets,
                  him, and his apostles. Paul blamed Israel for killing the prophets,
                  Jesus and the apostles. The Apocalypse blames Babylon for killing the
                  prophets, Jesus, and the apostles. I find this quite compelling, and
                  see no reason to discount it. >>>

                  You are also right to say that in Matt 23 and 1 Thess the Jews are
                  held responsible for the killing of the faithful. In Matt 23:34-36
                  the ongoing persecution of those whom Jesus would send was what they
                  had always done. It may be, however, that Jesus is thinking more
                  broadly than just the Jews here. Certainly he is speaking of
                  the `scribes and Pharisees', of those who `sit on Moses' seat' and `O
                  Jerusalem', but he may be using them to typify the unfaithful in
                  general. I only say this because the Jews, as a particular racial
                  group, can hardly be held responsible for the death of Abel (23:35).
                  This is not a position that I would bet my house on, but there is, I
                  think, some validity in it.

                  In Thessalonians 2:13f, Paul does say that the Jews 'killed both the
                  Lord Jesus and the prophets'. Not the apostles at that time but
                  they 'drove us out' (although James, brother of John, would have been
                  killed by then). However, his purpose was not to dump on Israel but
                  to encourage the Thessalonians who were experiencing the same things
                  from their own countrymen. What they were enduring was what the
                  faithful from all ages and in all places would endure, "all who
                  desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted" (2
                  Tim 3:12).

                  The Revelation charges Babylon with the killing of the apostles and
                  prophets, yes, but not with the Jesus' death. That is attributed
                  to 'the great city which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt'
                  (11:8). If the same city is meant as was referred to by the term
                  Babylon, why in this place alone is this description given. The two
                  may be one, but that is not at all certain from the text and seems,
                  to me, to be unlikely.

                  >>> As for whether Israel's measure of guilt was filled by the
                  crucifixion, Jesus looked beyond that event in Matthew 23, to the
                  persecution of those whom he was to send. Further, writing sometime
                  later, Paul also included the persecution of the apostles in the
                  process of filling Israel's guilt, and the Apocalypse does the same.
                  It is the martyrdom of the apostles that serves as the crucial final
                  bit of persecution. >>>

                  You are also right to say that Israel had yet to fill its cup - if
                  one can speak in quantitative terms at all - for God would not have
                  brought his judgment before time. Then again, he is merciful in his
                  actions and his judgements are probably deserved long before he
                  executes them.

                  Of course, there was only one apostle that we know of – unless you
                  include James the Just – who was killed in Jerusalem. At least two
                  were killed in Rome, Peter and Paul, and others may have died at the
                  hands of the Roman empire. Jerusalem's responsibility in the death of
                  the apostles may depend on how broadly you want to cast the apostolic
                  net. If James alone is to be considered as an apostle in the
                  strictest sense, then only one, i.e. not apostles, was killed in
                  Jerusalem.

                  While it may be historically true that the Jewish authorities (with
                  the Romans) killed Jesus, we must keep in mind that we all killed
                  him. What was happening was a racial - and a necessary - act, so
                  there are theological reasons why the Jews (especially in Matt 23)
                  can be seen to be representing a broader group. That is not to deny
                  Israel's particular covenantal relationship with God which involved
                  his blessings and cursings of the nation. I do understand, >>>The
                  incredible covenantal significance of the fall of Jerusalem.>>> In
                  the light of God's gifts to that nation (Rom 9:4-5), its demise was
                  of enormous consequence, but it was also the result of God's
                  covenantal faithfulness.

                  >>> However, I do not believe that Peter's concept of the parousia
                  was a literal cosmic event, to bring earth's history to an end. The
                  concept of the Day of the Lord is an in-time, historical event in
                  which Jehovah--or in the Apocalypse, Jesus revealed
                  as "pantokratoros", manifested Himself. The "cosmic disturbances"
                  language is metaphorical. >>>

                  If all talk about 'cosmic disturbances' is metaphorical, then at what
                  point can we insist that Babylon is a particular city, any city at
                  all, whether Jerusalem or Rome? I'll have to try and find some time
                  to look up Wright and McKnight.

                  I understand that much of the language regarding God's judgments is
                  metaphorical, but to claim that every mention of a global/cosmic
                  action of God is metaphorical would concern me. (Of course, I have
                  not read your material about this, but I will not be easily
                  convinced). It may suit a particular view of history (and we probably
                  all have one), but I think it might inhibit the full intention of the
                  text. My primary concern – as I have mentioned before – is that it
                  would negate much prophecy which seems clearly to be (at least)
                  double layered.

                  The mini-apocalypses of Matt 24, Mk 13 and Lk 21, for instance,
                  obviously deal with the fall of Jerusalem, but they go beyond that to
                  the events of the parousia. Now one way to remove the tension between
                  the two layers may br to insist that everything intended was
                  fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem – as you would be ware. To say
                  it is all metaphorical is convenient to support that view, but are
                  either of them right (i.e. that all was fulfilled with Jerusalem's
                  fall and all references to cosmic judgments are metaphorical)?

                  As I read Matt 24, I find very little that appears to be
                  metaphorical. The disciples had asked a clear question and Jesus gave
                  a clear answer – even if it could not be fully appreciated until the
                  events it described. Vv. 29-31 may leave room for a metaphorical
                  approach, but they may not be intended to be so read either. Jesus'
                  description of his "coming on the clouds of heaven with power and
                  great glory" matches his words at his trial (Mt 26:24). Neither of
                  these seem places where Jesus would have been inclined speak
                  metaphorically. Compare these two verses with Rev 1:7 where Jesus
                  says much the same thing. In verses 4-7 Jesus is definitely not
                  speaking metaphorically, so it would be wrong to take v. 7 alone and
                  insist that it is metaphorical. If v. 7 is not metaphorical then it
                  makes no sense to take Mt 24:29-31 or 26:24 metaphorically.
                  Even the Old Testament passages you quoted, Don, or at least some of
                  them, may be double layered. Yes, a local judgment is pronounced
                  against (ancient) Babylon, but does it leave open another, greater
                  fulfillment – a greater judgment against a greater Babylon. The "day
                  of the Lord" may speak of the coming, local judgement, the judgment
                  of the cross and/or the final judgment. How much spoken prophetically
                  about Israel – and meaningful for that nation (e.g. "I will say to
                  the north, Give up, and to the south, Do not withhold; bring my sons
                  from afar and my daughters from the end of the earth" Isa 43:6). What
                  about Joel 2:28-2 (cf Acts 2:17-21 and Rev 6:12-13) or Jer 31:31-34.
                  Perhaps, Don, you could say briefly why Mat 24 – or what parts of it –
                  are metaphorical.

                  Neither can I see that the general resurrection to eternal life (Matt
                  24:31; 25:31f; Lk 14:14; 20:27f; Jn 5:28f; 1 Cor 15:51f – to list
                  just a few) was spoken of metaphorically or that it was fulfilled in
                  AD 70.
                  It does not seem to me that we are living in anything that could be
                  understood as the new heavens and the new earth where God's people
                  will know and see him face to face and sin will be no more (2 Pet
                  3:11-13; 1 Jn 3:2; Rev 21:1; 22:4). I fully expect a world where
                  these will be obvious and real, not metaphorical.
                  No, I think there are great riches yet – beyond human comprehension
                  (1 Cor 2:9) - that are still to be revealed.

                  You say, >>>"Finally, to understand that the first century Jews
                  thought of the Temple as "heaven and earth"".>>> This may be so, but
                  I suspect that John was not restricted by it.

                  Sincerely,

                  Kym Smith
                  Adelaide
                  South Australia
                  khs@...
                • Ian Paul
                  ... Yes, but using one part of the NT for the exegesis of the other has to overcome one important problem: suppose John disagreed with Paul and Matthew? Or
                  Message 8 of 27 , Sep 3, 2001
                    Don wrote:

                    >>>> I do not feel that the pattern found in Matthew and Thessalonians
                    >has been addressed. Jesus blamed Israel for killing the prophets,
                    >him, and his apostles. Paul blamed Israel for killing the prophets,
                    >Jesus and the apostles. The Apocalypse blames Babylon for killing the
                    >prophets, Jesus, and the apostles. I find this quite compelling, and
                    >see no reason to discount it. >>>

                    Yes, but using one part of the NT for the exegesis of the other has to
                    overcome one important problem: suppose 'John' disagreed with Paul and
                    Matthew? Or at least, suppose he is writing in a different situation and is
                    concerned with a different audience?

                    Ian Paul
                    .......................
                    Revd Dr Ian Paul 32 Penn Hill Avenue, Poole, Dorset BH14 9LZ
                    01202 745963 fax 01202 385539
                  • John M. Sweigart
                    Dear Ian: Yes and amen. Or to put it another way, before we start comparing texts between books, is it not necessary to establish the literary structure of
                    Message 9 of 27 , Sep 3, 2001
                      Dear Ian:

                      Yes and amen. Or to put it another way, before we start comparing texts
                      between books, is it not necessary to establish the literary structure of
                      the two passages under consideration? I have always been concerned when
                      discussions in academic dialogue disregard that question. For example, in
                      Matthew 24, I have seldom seen anyone discuss the topic "in what order did
                      Jesus answer the three questions?" Or two questions with one question having
                      two parts (reflecting the original) It seems apparent after some study that
                      He answered the questions in reverse order. Thus his discussion of "the
                      end" first; secondly "the sign of his coming" next the answer to the vital
                      question "when will these things be?" His answer to this question begins
                      "Now concerning (peri de in the Greek, the famous Pauline marker for a
                      change of subject) the day and the hour..." It seems apparent to me that
                      this discourse cannot be used to prove some sort of order in the Revelation
                      which shows marks of chronological advance by its use of the series of
                      sevens.

                      John M. Sweigart


                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Ian Paul [mailto:ian.b.paul@...]
                      Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 5:57 AM
                      To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [revelation-list] Re: Babylon: Rome or Jerusalem


                      Don wrote:

                      >>>> I do not feel that the pattern found in Matthew and Thessalonians
                      >has been addressed. Jesus blamed Israel for killing the prophets,
                      >him, and his apostles. Paul blamed Israel for killing the prophets,
                      >Jesus and the apostles. The Apocalypse blames Babylon for killing the
                      >prophets, Jesus, and the apostles. I find this quite compelling, and
                      >see no reason to discount it. >>>

                      Yes, but using one part of the NT for the exegesis of the other has to
                      overcome one important problem: suppose 'John' disagreed with Paul and
                      Matthew? Or at least, suppose he is writing in a different situation and is
                      concerned with a different audience?

                      Ian Paul
                      .......................
                      Revd Dr Ian Paul 32 Penn Hill Avenue, Poole, Dorset BH14 9LZ
                      01202 745963 fax 01202 385539


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



                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    • Don K. Preston
                      Ian, has raised good questions of course, but not, in my view, questions that are unanswered. First, we have Paul s statement that he and John, who I would
                      Message 10 of 27 , Sep 5, 2001
                        Ian, has raised good questions of course, but not, in my view, questions
                        that are unanswered.
                        First, we have Paul's statement that he and John, who I would accept as the
                        author of the Apocalypse, were not in disagreement in their gospel.
                        Second, Paul preached the hope of Israel in his eschatology, and John was
                        also anticipating the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel.
                        Third, Paul and John both write about a common theme, the New Jerusalem (not
                        to mention martyr vindication). In Galatians 4, Philippians 3, and
                        (depending on the Pauline authorship), Hebrews 12, Paul sets forth his idea
                        of the New City in a context of contrast between Old Jerusalem and the New.
                        It would seem to me that one would have to reject either Paul's statement of
                        gospel accord between he and John, disprove Johannine authorship of
                        Revelation (which of course, in itself would not prove disjunction between
                        "John" and the Pauline corpus, and prove a different situation between Paul
                        and the Apocalypse.
                        So far, I have not been persuaded that any of this can be proven.
                        The accord and agreement between the Pauline epistles and Revelation is
                        consistent thematically and doctrinally so far as I can see. I find no
                        reason to posit a conflict either in doctrine, or circumstances between the
                        two authors.
                        Thus, I don't have a problem with intertextuality.

                        Don K.

                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "Ian Paul" <ian.b.paul@...>
                        To: <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 3:57 AM
                        Subject: Re: [revelation-list] Re: Babylon: Rome or Jerusalem


                        >
                        > Don wrote:
                        >
                        > >>>> I do not feel that the pattern found in Matthew and Thessalonians
                        > >has been addressed. Jesus blamed Israel for killing the prophets,
                        > >him, and his apostles. Paul blamed Israel for killing the prophets,
                        > >Jesus and the apostles. The Apocalypse blames Babylon for killing the
                        > >prophets, Jesus, and the apostles. I find this quite compelling, and
                        > >see no reason to discount it. >>>
                        >
                        > Yes, but using one part of the NT for the exegesis of the other has to
                        > overcome one important problem: suppose 'John' disagreed with Paul and
                        > Matthew? Or at least, suppose he is writing in a different situation and
                        is
                        > concerned with a different audience?
                        >
                        > Ian Paul
                        > .......................
                        > Revd Dr Ian Paul 32 Penn Hill Avenue, Poole, Dorset BH14 9LZ
                        > 01202 745963 fax 01202 385539
                        >
                        >
                        > 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/
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • Ian Paul
                        Don There is an interesting question here on where the burden of proof lies. If I understand correctly, then for your argument to be valid you need a number of
                        Message 11 of 27 , Sep 5, 2001
                          Don

                          There is an interesting question here on where the burden of proof lies. If
                          I
                          understand correctly, then for your argument to be valid you need a number
                          of things all to be true:

                          -Paul's statement of agreement with John has particular implications in
                          terms of what they both write
                          -this John is the author of Revelation
                          -they are writing with similar concerns and into similar situations.

                          For my question to raise problems, only one of these be weak.

                          I think it would be very hard to argue that 'the New Jerusalem' expressed in
                          this way is a major theme of Paul. Justification by faith, the new
                          eschatological era of the Spirit, the expectation of the redemption of all
                          creation, yes, but 'New Jerusalem'? Hmmm. And how clear is substitutionary
                          atonement in Revelation?

                          For myself, I think the question of authorship is difficult to prove. And if
                          Revelation
                          is even a few years later than Paul, then the Christian community is in a
                          very different relationship with Judaism (and therefore the Empire vis-a-vis
                          the fiscus judaicus), and the whole dynamic has changed.

                          And given the diversity of situations and concerns we already have in the NT
                          (cf Romans v Cor v Heb v James v John) we surely need to start with the
                          assumption that John has his own agenda, rather than that we can use other
                          parts of the NT for exegesis of Revelation. There is a question here of the
                          extent to which, even in principle, we can read one text through another
                          without doing violence to the integrity of each text. To take Scripture
                          seriously must mean allowing it to be as diverse as it really is, rather
                          than trying to integrate it doctrinally in a way that it resists.

                          Having said that, I agree that John and Paul are not approaching things from
                          a fundamentally different doctrinal position. But I have become convinced of
                          that by studying the texts each in their own right.

                          Ian Paul
                          ----------
                          >From: "Don K. Preston" <dkpret@...>
                          >To: <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
                          >Subject: Re: [revelation-list] Re: Babylon: Rome or Jerusalem
                          >Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 08:43:12 -0700
                          >
                          >Ian, has raised good questions of course, but not, in my view, questions
                          >that are unanswered.
                          >First, we have Paul's statement that he and John, who I would accept as the
                          >author of the Apocalypse, were not in disagreement in their gospel.
                          >Second, Paul preached the hope of Israel in his eschatology, and John was
                          >also anticipating the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel.
                          >Third, Paul and John both write about a common theme, the New Jerusalem
                          (not
                          >to mention martyr vindication). In Galatians 4, Philippians 3, and
                          >(depending on the Pauline authorship), Hebrews 12, Paul sets forth his idea
                          >of the New City in a context of contrast between Old Jerusalem and the New.
                          >It would seem to me that one would have to reject either Paul's statement
                          of
                          >gospel accord between he and John, disprove Johannine authorship of
                          >Revelation (which of course, in itself would not prove disjunction between
                          >"John" and the Pauline corpus, and prove a different situation between Paul
                          >and the Apocalypse.
                          >So far, I have not been persuaded that any of this can be proven.
                          >The accord and agreement between the Pauline epistles and Revelation is
                          >consistent thematically and doctrinally so far as I can see. I find no
                          >reason to posit a conflict either in doctrine, or circumstances between the
                          >two authors.
                          >Thus, I don't have a problem with intertextuality.
                          >
                          >Don K.
                        • Ed Garcia
                          In Rev. Paul s response to Mr. Preston he says: Hmmm. And how clear is substitutionary atonement in Revelation? More often than not the book of Revelation
                          Message 12 of 27 , Sep 6, 2001
                            In Rev. Paul's response to Mr. Preston he says:

                            "Hmmm. And how clear is substitutionary atonement in Revelation?"

                            More often than not the book of Revelation refers to Jesus as the Lamb. As I
                            understand it, Jesus as sacrificial Lamb definitely suggests the idea of
                            substitutionary atonement. When the Lamb takes the scroll the elders respond
                            by saying "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You
                            were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and
                            tongue and people and nation." The idea of redemption is one of the dominant
                            themes of the prophecy.
                          • Don K. Preston
                            Ian, I will try to address some of the issues that you have raised. Thanks for the input and comments. My thoughts interjected below. Don K ... From: Ian
                            Message 13 of 27 , Sep 6, 2001
                              Ian, I will try to address some of the issues that you have raised. Thanks
                              for the input and comments.
                              My thoughts interjected below.
                              Don K
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: "Ian Paul" <ian.b.paul@...>
                              To: <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 3:17 PM
                              Subject: Re: [revelation-list] Re: Babylon: Rome or Jerusalem


                              >
                              > Don
                              >
                              > There is an interesting question here on where the burden of proof lies.
                              If
                              > I understand correctly, then for your argument to be valid you need a
                              number
                              > of things all to be true:
                              >
                              > -Paul's statement of agreement with John has particular implications in
                              terms of what they both write
                              Response: Yes, Paul's statement of agreement between he and John would have
                              directly implications for what they both write. I have never found the
                              suggestions of disagreements and conflicts between any of the NT writers
                              convincing in anyway. On the other hand, I find direct statements of
                              agreement (Galatians 2; 2 Peter 3:15f, etc). Given these statements, the
                              burden of proof that John and Paul did disagree would seem to be on the one
                              that says they did disagree.

                              > This John is the author of Revelation
                              Response: I made note of this in my other post. Even if one were to prove
                              that the John of Galatians 2 was not the author of Revelation, (I am not
                              convinced at all of this suggestion), one would still have to concretely
                              prove that this John was in disagreement with Paul. I see no evidence of
                              this.


                              >They are writing with similar concerns and into similar situations.
                              Response: The concerns in Paul and the Apocalypse are certainly similar in
                              many regards. The issues of persecution, martyr vindication, the New
                              Creation, the fulfillment of Israel's prophetic hopes at the eschatological
                              consummation, all play a major role in Pauline theology. And, these are very
                              important themes in Revelation as well. Thus, as I suggested earlier,
                              thematically, Paul and Revelation are related.

                              >
                              > For my question to raise problems, only one of these be weak.
                              >
                              > I think it would be very hard to argue that 'the New Jerusalem' expressed
                              in
                              > this way is a major theme of Paul. Justification by faith, the new
                              > eschatological era of the Spirit, the expectation of the redemption of all
                              > creation, yes, but 'New Jerusalem'? Hmmm. And how clear is substitutionary
                              > atonement in Revelation?
                              Response: To suggest that the new eschatological era of the Spirit, and the
                              redemtion of creation were significant to Paul but that the New Jerusalem
                              was not, is, I believe, to draw a line of delineation that is not found in
                              scripture. The New Creation included the life of the Spirit, and assuredly
                              involved the New Jerusalem.
                              Further to ask "how clear is substituionary atonement in Revelation" is, it
                              seems to me, to argue ex silencio. Because John does not provide a lengthy
                              discourse on the atonement does not mean it is not present (Revelation 5,
                              7), nor does it mean that he would disagree with Pauline thought. I think
                              Kaylor's suggestion, (Paul's Covenant Community), while made in his
                              discussion of the book of Romans, is valid in regard to Revelation as well.
                              The word covenant might not appear in Romans, but the thought is dominant.
                              Likewise, the word atonement might not appear in Revelation but the thought
                              lies behind much of what is written.
                              Finally on this issue, the New Jerusalem was sufficiently important to Paul
                              that provided the ground for his discussion of the rejection of the Old
                              Jerusalem, the reception of the inheritance, the identity of the true seed
                              of Abraham, etc--which incidentally, are issues addressed in Revelation.

                              >
                              > For myself, I think the question of authorship is difficult to prove. And
                              if Revelation
                              > is even a few years later than Paul, then the Christian community is in a
                              > very different relationship with Judaism (and therefore the Empire
                              vis-a-vis
                              > the fiscus judaicus), and the whole dynamic has changed.
                              Response: This takes, it seems to me, for granted that Revelation was
                              written later than Paul. I am not convinced of that at all. Instead, I find
                              that the issues of Revelation were the identical issues confronting Paul at
                              a very early stage, even the eating of meats sacrificed to idols (Romans 14;
                              1 Cor. 10; Rv. 2-3).

                              >
                              > And given the diversity of situations and concerns we already have in the
                              NT
                              > (cf Romans v Cor v Heb v James v John) we surely need to start with the
                              > assumption that John has his own agenda, rather than that we can use other
                              > parts of the NT for exegesis of Revelation. There is a question here of
                              the
                              > extent to which, even in principle, we can read one text through another
                              > without doing violence to the integrity of each text. To take Scripture
                              > seriously must mean allowing it to be as diverse as it really is, rather
                              > than trying to integrate it doctrinally in a way that it resists.
                              Response: I would heartily disagree that we need to start with the
                              assumption that Paul and John had their own agenda. I am convinced that
                              there was in fact, a unifying principle lying behind their writings, and
                              that is the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel, and they both state
                              that in their writings. If the promises made to Israel was the guiding
                              principle/issue for both writers (not to mention the other NT writers) then,
                              we have every reason to look for unity and thus, inter-textuality is not
                              only tenable but proper. When Peter said that Paul wrote of the New
                              Creation, just as he, (Peter), did, I do not expect to find disagreement, I
                              expect to find harmony. As I stated above, given statements like this, it is
                              incumbent on the one positing disagreement/conflict between the authors to
                              prove that Peter was wrong, or misguided, and that Paul did not actually
                              write the same things he did.
                              >
                              > Having said that, I agree that John and Paul are not approaching things
                              from
                              > a fundamentally different doctrinal position. But I have become convinced
                              of
                              > that by studying the texts each in their own right.

                              Finally, I still do not feel that the issues of Matthew 23--->1
                              Thessalonians 2:15f---Revelation have been addressed. It seems to me that we
                              are being asked to virtually ignore the parallels between the texts, even
                              though they are thematically identical. Further, I have pointed out that
                              Paul, in agreement with what Jesus said about the filling the measure of
                              sin/sufferring in Matthew 23, said that God had set forth the apostles "last
                              of all, as men condemned to die." This agrees with the picture of Revelation
                              17-18, which does not carry the theme of martyrdom beyond the apostles.
                              Since Jesus limited the framework of persecution to his generation, his
                              apostles and Jewish culpability, I think it very significant that the
                              Apocalypse stays within those strictures.

                              Well, that is more than enough. Thanks again. I enjoy the exchange.
                              Don K.


                              >
                              > Ian Paul
                              > ----------
                              > >From: "Don K. Preston" <dkpret@...>
                              > >To: <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
                              > >Subject: Re: [revelation-list] Re: Babylon: Rome or Jerusalem
                              > >Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 08:43:12 -0700
                              > >
                              > >Ian, has raised good questions of course, but not, in my view, questions
                              > >that are unanswered.
                              > >First, we have Paul's statement that he and John, who I would accept as
                              the
                              > >author of the Apocalypse, were not in disagreement in their gospel.
                              > >Second, Paul preached the hope of Israel in his eschatology, and John was
                              > >also anticipating the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel.
                              > >Third, Paul and John both write about a common theme, the New Jerusalem
                              > (not
                              > >to mention martyr vindication). In Galatians 4, Philippians 3, and
                              > >(depending on the Pauline authorship), Hebrews 12, Paul sets forth his
                              idea
                              > >of the New City in a context of contrast between Old Jerusalem and the
                              New.
                              > >It would seem to me that one would have to reject either Paul's statement
                              > of
                              > >gospel accord between he and John, disprove Johannine authorship of
                              > >Revelation (which of course, in itself would not prove disjunction
                              between
                              > >"John" and the Pauline corpus, and prove a different situation between
                              Paul
                              > >and the Apocalypse.
                              > >So far, I have not been persuaded that any of this can be proven.
                              > >The accord and agreement between the Pauline epistles and Revelation is
                              > >consistent thematically and doctrinally so far as I can see. I find no
                              > >reason to posit a conflict either in doctrine, or circumstances between
                              the
                              > >two authors.
                              > >Thus, I don't have a problem with intertextuality.
                              > >
                              > >Don K.
                              >
                              >
                              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              > revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              >
                              >
                              >
                            • Don K. Preston
                              That is why I referred to Rv. 5, and 7 due to the referents to the redeeming shed blood. Atonement is very much present. I probably did not communicate what I
                              Message 14 of 27 , Sep 6, 2001
                                That is why I referred to Rv. 5, and 7 due to the referents to the redeeming
                                shed blood. Atonement is very much present. I probably did not communicate
                                what I meant clearly enough however. Thanks for the additional comment.
                                Don K
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: Ed Garcia <Ed.Garcia@...>
                                To: <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 3:31 PM
                                Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Babylon: Rome or Jerusalem


                                > In Rev. Paul's response to Mr. Preston he says:
                                >
                                > "Hmmm. And how clear is substitutionary atonement in Revelation?"
                                >
                                > More often than not the book of Revelation refers to Jesus as the Lamb. As
                                I
                                > understand it, Jesus as sacrificial Lamb definitely suggests the idea of
                                > substitutionary atonement. When the Lamb takes the scroll the elders
                                respond
                                > by saying "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You
                                > were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and
                                > tongue and people and nation." The idea of redemption is one of the
                                dominant
                                > themes of the prophecy.
                                >
                                >
                                > 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/
                                >
                                >
                                >
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.