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

Re: Babylon: Rome or Jerusalem

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.