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

Re: Rome v Jerusalem

Expand Messages
  • ksmith@standrews.sa.edu.au
    Dear Georg, My position is that the Revelation is (at least) double layered. There was a fulfilment - or partial fulfilment - of the Rev n which those to whom
    Message 1 of 16 , Sep 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Georg,

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

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

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

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

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

      Sincerely,

      Kym Smith
      Adelaide
      South Australia
      khs@...
    • Marko Jauhiainen
      Dear Georg & others, ... Could you be more specific with regard to the relationship of NJ and the (glorified) people of God? Would you equate the two (as some
      Message 2 of 16 , Sep 3, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Georg & others,

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

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

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

        Shalom,

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

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

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

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

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

            Hope this is helpful.

            Georg (S. Adamsen, LSTA)


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



            Dear Georg & others,

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

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

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

            Shalom,

            Marko


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

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



            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          • Georg S. Adamsen
            I hesitate to say that for John, something would surely have ... when this is the very issue under discussion. This is an exegetical issue. It is the text
            Message 5 of 16 , Sep 4, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              I hesitate to say that "for John, something would surely have ..."
              when this is the very issue under discussion. This is an exegetical
              issue. It is the text which we must explain. I pointed to a few
              textual observations.

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

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

              Georg (S. Adamsen, LSTA)



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



              Georg wrote:

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

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

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

              Ian Paul
            • Marko Jauhiainen
              ... Thanks for the clarification, Georg. I do not wish to address Gundry s article here, but let me explain what I had in my mind when I asked you to be more
              Message 6 of 16 , Sep 4, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                On 4 Sep 2001, at 9:27, Georg S. Adamsen wrote:

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

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

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

                Could this also be the case in Revelation?

                Shalom,

                Marko
              • Newell, Terry-Michael
                Some time ago on this list, reference was made to the New Jerusalem, not as a place for people, but describing people as a place. What/who is the origin of
                Message 7 of 16 , Apr 15, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  New Jerusalem

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

                  Sincerely,
                  Terry-Michael Newell

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

                • John W. Marshall
                  New JerusalemTerry, I would look to Jonathon Z. Smith, but the exact reference of the article escapes me at the moment. Perhaps another member of our list has
                  Message 8 of 16 , Apr 15, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    New Jerusalem
                    Terry,
                     
                    I would look to Jonathon Z. Smith, but the exact reference of the article escapes me at the moment.  Perhaps another member of our list has it at hand.
                     
                     --jwm
                    _____________________________________________________________________
                    John W. Marshall                               Assistant Professor
                                                                            Department for the Study of Religion
                                                                            University of Toronto
                    john.marshall@...                416.978.8122
                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Newell, Terry-Michael [mailto:newell@...]
                    Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 3:13 PM
                    To: Revelation-List Group (E-mail)
                    Subject: [revelation-list] New Jerusalem

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

                    Sincerely,
                    Terry-Michael Newell

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



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



                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                  • profram@aol.com
                    Message 9 of 16 , Apr 15, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                    • profram@aol.com
                      Yes, the terminology comes from Robert H. Gundry, The New Jerusalem: People as Place, not Place for People, Novum Testamentum 29 (1987), 254-64. Sorry, I just
                      Message 10 of 16 , Apr 15, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Yes, the terminology comes from Robert H. Gundry, "The New Jerusalem: People
                        as Place, not Place for People, Novum Testamentum 29 (1987), 254-64.

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

                        Ramsey Michaels
                      • Dave Mathewson
                        There is a well-known article with a similar title by Robert Gundry entitled, The New Jerusalem: People as Place, not Place for People , NovT 29 (1987), pp.
                        Message 11 of 16 , Apr 15, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          There is a well-known article with a similar title by Robert Gundry
                          entitled, 'The New Jerusalem: People as Place, not Place for People', NovT
                          29 (1987), pp. 254-62.

                          Dave Mathewson



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