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

RE: New Jerusalem

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.