The Apostle John thought the end was near... (page 3)

PSacramento

Psh, Revelation was written for US not whoever John thought his audience was at the time he wrote it.

I know you are kidding but, which PART of Revelation? the first eddition or the edition that was the final "work"?

sabastious

I find the fact that PAUL refers to the congregation as "little children" highly disconcerting and telling of his, sometimes, arrogant message.

-Sab

sabastious

I know you are kidding but, which PART of Revelation? the first eddition or the edition that was the final "work"?

Whatever ended up becoming final in the Holy Handbook.

-Sab

PSacramento

I find the fact that PAUL refers to the congregation as "little children" highly disconcerting and telling of his, sometimes, arrogant message.

Really? I always saw it as an example of his enormous affection for them.

Sure John's "beloved" is more "loving" (perhaps) but that was John's way.

PSacramento

Whatever ended up becoming final in the Holy Handbook.

Most of the commentaries and studies i have read on Revelation tend to agree that John of Patmos was directing his letter to his contemporaries that were facing persecution from Rome and was, in typical apocalyptic style like Daniel and Enoch, meant as inspirational and "don't worry, in the end we will be ok and the bad guys will pay for what they are doing to us".

sabastious

Really? I always saw it as an example of his enormous affection for them.

I'll address this in a post I am working on.

-Sab

Leolaia

Hoffnung....Yeah that book was horrid. You would do well to read almost any commentary that takes a critical exegetical approach. I would recommend Beale's commentary (NIGTC series), although the one I personally use the most is Aune's three-volume commentary (Word series). But Aune is really overkill for a non-specialist and probably not very comprehensible if one lacks a knowledge of Greek as well as ancient literature. But Aune gives the best demonstration I've ever seen that the author of Revelation had Rome in mind in ch. 13-18. Not going into details, one could note: (1) the author explicitly identifies the harlot as "the great city that rules (present tense) over the kings of the earth" (17:18), (2) the elaborate description of the trade network in ch. 18 is specifically that of Rome (where ships could sail to directly up the Tiber River), (3) the reference to the seven hills is logically that of Rome's famous seven hills, (4) the image of the harlot sitting on seven hills (17:9) is a parody of the goddess Roma, the patron goddess of Rome, who was indeed depicted on official coinage at the time Revelation was written (as well as in her temples) as sitting on the seven hills of Rome, (5) this city was drunk with the blood of the martyrs (17:6), which reflects Rome's persecution of Christians in AD 64, (6) this city which rules over all the nations of the earth has a line of kings, five of whom have already fallen, and the Beast who will destroy the city in the future was already one of the city's prior kings (7:9-10); this is because the Beast was thought to have been killed but had in fact been healed (13:3). This clearly draws on the Nero redivivus speculation rampant at the time Revelation was written that Nero didn't really die but went into hiding and would return with the Parthians to destroy Rome (as Nero was already rumored to have burned down part of Rome already, and ch. 18 has Rome burned entirely when the Beast destroys the great city), (7) the idolatry and false worship of the Beast related in ch. 13 pertains to the imperial cult and the worshop of the Emperor and goddess Roma (whose had temples in Asia Minor in some of the same cities Revelation was addressed to), (8) like the harlot Babylon the goddess Roma had a secret name, and there are a number of other things one could mention as well.

pirata

Leolaia, do you like the entire "Word Biblical Commentary" series? Or is it mainly the Revelation one in that series that you favor?

Leolaia

It's a good series; I haven't seen it all but I have Wenhem's Genesis commentary, Goldingay's Daniel commentary, Bauckham's Jude/2 Peter commentary, and they are all excellent. Watts' two-volume Isaiah commentary I also have but the structural analysis (that Isaiah was written as theater) seems really forced to me. I also have the commentary on John which is more expository than critical, which seems a bit of a disappointment to me. I have Smalley's commentary on 1/2/3 John which I find very helpful. But I like the series as a whole from what I've seen, and Aune's three-volume commentary on Revelation is truly magnificent.

Billy the Ex-Bethelite

This thread is, like, 13 days old now... and the END still hasn't come...

Come on, Leo, enough with the commentary, just tell us how near the end is!

The Apostle John thought the end was near...

Share this