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

RE: [revelation-list] New Jerusalem (RE: Rome v Jerusalem)

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