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

New Jerusalem (RE: Rome v Jerusalem)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.