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

Re: [revelation-list] Re: Babylon: Rome or Jerusalem

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 27 , Aug 30, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 27 , Sep 2, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 27 , Sep 3, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 27 , Sep 3, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 27 , Sep 5, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 27 , Sep 5, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 27 , Sep 6, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 27 , Sep 6, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 27 , Sep 6, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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.