authors david chilton (1987) and james stuart russell (1878) propose that the revelation is primarily a prophecy of the destruction of ancient jerusalem by the roman armies.
the revelation is jerusalem's armageddon (mountain of assembled roman troops).
i see the revelation as a war siren warning the first century christians of the imminent destruction of the city.
Hello StirredButNotShaken,
Thank you for your contribution--a refreshing Zephyr in contrast to the typhonic responses I'm accustomed to. Your post underscored the value of examining the internal evidence of the Revelation versus the tradition passed down through men like "Saint" Irenaeus.
For me, Russell's Parousia was a paradigm shift. Years of mental conditioning gave me 'paradigm paralysis.'
Let's discuss further!
T
authors david chilton (1987) and james stuart russell (1878) propose that the revelation is primarily a prophecy of the destruction of ancient jerusalem by the roman armies.
the revelation is jerusalem's armageddon (mountain of assembled roman troops).
i see the revelation as a war siren warning the first century christians of the imminent destruction of the city.
Hello TD,
Thank you for your thoughtful post. With your indulgence, I will quote James Stuart Russell:
“If, then, ‘the great city’ of chap. 11: 8 means ancient Jerusalem, it follows that ‘the great city’ of chap. 16: 8, styled also Babylon, and ‘the great city’ of chap. 16:19. must equally signify Jerusalem. By parity of reasoning, ‘that great city’ in chap. 17:18, and elsewhere, must refer also to Jerusalem. It is a mere assumption to say that Jerusalem is never called by this name.
There is no unfitness, but the contrary, in such a distinctive title being applied to Jerusalem. It was to an Israelite the royal city, by far the greatest in the land, the only city which could properly be so designated; and it ought never to be forgotten that the visions of the Apocalypse are to regarded from a Jewish point of view.”
And as David Chilton observes, "the woman" is "seated" on the wild beast--which confirms that "the woman" and "the wild beast" are separate.
T
authors david chilton (1987) and james stuart russell (1878) propose that the revelation is primarily a prophecy of the destruction of ancient jerusalem by the roman armies.
the revelation is jerusalem's armageddon (mountain of assembled roman troops).
i see the revelation as a war siren warning the first century christians of the imminent destruction of the city.
Hello EdenOne,
I wondered whether your research took you in the same direction as my own. Having perused your [excellent!] website, I'm not at all surprised that you reached the same conclusion about Jerusalem.
I find it both enriching and exciting to think outside the box [coffin] of orthodoxy and traditional hermeneutics. I sense that you do too. I'm certain that you have had a number of eureka! moments following a slog through scripture.
Perhaps I can ask whether James Stuart Russell or David Chilton contributed to your insight? Excellent writers, both. Of the two, I prefer Russell. I find his text more intelligible than Chilton's. Chilton seems convinced that scripture explains scripture. In fact there are so many scriptures that my brain feels microwaved after reading even one page. I believe his premise is true to a point, but his optic neglects to factor in the Israelite culture. Nevertheless, both texts complement one another.
Givemejustalittlemoretime and Designs: Thank you both! Because I would like to do your posts justice, I will respond as time permits. I prefer to read and reflect on the posts rather than do hair-trigger responses.
T
authors david chilton (1987) and james stuart russell (1878) propose that the revelation is primarily a prophecy of the destruction of ancient jerusalem by the roman armies.
the revelation is jerusalem's armageddon (mountain of assembled roman troops).
i see the revelation as a war siren warning the first century christians of the imminent destruction of the city.
Hello Crazyguy,
I'll respond to your statement that the Revelation 'was most likely written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.'
James Stuart Russell offers the following reasons for dating the Revelation before the destruction of Jerusalem [I have modified some of his comments to make his language more contemporary]:
1. That the Apocalypse was written before the destruction of Jerusalem will follow as a matter of course if it can be shown that that event forms in great measure the subject of its predictions. This, we believe, can be done so as to satisfy any reasonable mind. We appeal to Chapter 1:7: ‘Behold he is coming with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all the tribes of the land shall wail because of him.’ ‘The tribes of the land’ can only mean the people of Israel, as is proved by the original prophecy in Zech. xii. 10-14, and still more by the language of our Savior in Matt. 24: 30. There cannot be the shadow of a doubt that the ‘coming’ referred to is the Parousia, the precursor of judgment, terrible to those ‘who pierced him,’ and always declared by our Lord to lie within the limits of the existing generation.
2. After the fullest consideration of the remarkable expression [the Lord’s day], in Rev. 1: 10, we are satisfied that it cannot refer to the first day of the week, but that those interpreters are right who understand it to refer to the period called elsewhere ‘the day of the Lord.’ There is no difference whatever between 'the Lord's Day' and the Day of the Lord.
3. In Rev. 3: 10 we are informed that a season of severe trial was then imminent, viz. a bitter persecution of those who bore the Christian name, extending over the whole world [or the Roman Empire]. Now the first general persecution of Christians was that which took place under Nero, A.D. 64. We infer that this was the persecution then impending, and therefore that the Apocalypse was written prior to that date.
4. That the book was written before the destruction of Jerusalem appears from the fact that the city and temple are spoken of as still in existence. (See chap. 11: 1, 2, 8.) It is scarcely probable that if Jerusalem had been a heap of ruins the apostle would have received a command to measure the temple; should represent the Holy City as about to be trodden down by the Gentiles; or that he should see the witnesses lie unburied in its streets.
David Chilton agrees with statement 4. It is John's "intimate acquaintance with the minute details of Temple worship" which suggest the Revelation was written before the Temple services actually cease.
T
authors david chilton (1987) and james stuart russell (1878) propose that the revelation is primarily a prophecy of the destruction of ancient jerusalem by the roman armies.
the revelation is jerusalem's armageddon (mountain of assembled roman troops).
i see the revelation as a war siren warning the first century christians of the imminent destruction of the city.
Hello Pterist,
Hello,
The author you cite states, "by “recapitulation,” I mean “the repetition of the same basic pattern in a variety of specific formulations” The word “plot” might be clearer than Collins word “pattern.”
James Stuart Russell essentially agrees, "the several visions [of the Revelation] may be described as only varied representations of the same facts or events; re-arrangements and new combinations of the same constituent elements. This is obviously the case with two of the great divisions, viz. the vision of the seven trumpets and that of the seven vials. These are almost counterparts of each other; and though the resemblance between the other visions is not so marked, yet it will be found that they are all different aspects of the same great event.
"the visions are not telescopic, looking at the distant; but kaleidoscopic,---every turn of the instrument producing a new combination of images, exquisitely beautiful and gorgeous, while the elements which compose the picture remain substantially the same.
"As Pharoah’s dream was one, though seen under two different forms, so the visions of the Apocalypse are one, though presented in seven different aspects. The reason of the repetition is probably in both cases the same. ‘For that the dream was doubled to Pharoah twice, it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass'’(Gen. xli. 32). In like manner the events foreshadowed in the Apocalypse are declared by their sevenfold repetition to be sure and near."
Because J.S. Russell approaches the Revelation as a Jewish document and accepts the explicit statements about the nearness of Jerusalem's destruction, I find his treatment more satisfying.
Bye for now!
T
authors david chilton (1987) and james stuart russell (1878) propose that the revelation is primarily a prophecy of the destruction of ancient jerusalem by the roman armies.
the revelation is jerusalem's armageddon (mountain of assembled roman troops).
i see the revelation as a war siren warning the first century christians of the imminent destruction of the city.
Hello EyeUse2Badub,
A duck walks into a store, approaches the shopkeeper and asks, "Do you have any grapes?"
The shopkeeper says, "Sorry, no."
The duck walks away and returns the following day.
"Do you have any grapes?"
The shopkeeper answers, "No."
The duck leaves the store, returns the following day and says, "Do you have any grapes?"
The shopkeeper says "No! And if you ask me one more time I'll staple your feet to the floor!"
The duck walks away.
The next day the duck returns to the store and asks the shopkeeper, "Do you have any staples?"
"No" says the shopkeeper.
The duck replies, "Do you have any grapes?"
:)
T
authors david chilton (1987) and james stuart russell (1878) propose that the revelation is primarily a prophecy of the destruction of ancient jerusalem by the roman armies.
the revelation is jerusalem's armageddon (mountain of assembled roman troops).
i see the revelation as a war siren warning the first century christians of the imminent destruction of the city.
Hello Vanderhoven7,
I recently read that "a rainbow does not exist at one particular location. Many rainbows exist; however, only one can be seen depending on the particular observer's viewpoint as droplets of light illuminated by the sun."
I'm happy that despite the many rainbows generated by the light we both see one.
T
authors david chilton (1987) and james stuart russell (1878) propose that the revelation is primarily a prophecy of the destruction of ancient jerusalem by the roman armies.
the revelation is jerusalem's armageddon (mountain of assembled roman troops).
i see the revelation as a war siren warning the first century christians of the imminent destruction of the city.
Hello Vanderhoven7,
Thank you for your response.
I believe theological positions (ideologies) can be elaborated and debated--to a point. But essentially, we see through paradigms, that is, a pattern of underlying assumptions. My paradigmatic assumptions may be summed up as follows:
Abrahamic: All scripture was written by and for the ancient Israelites.
Administrative: All scripture was written to discipline the Israelite leadership (principally).
Anachronistic: All scripture was been fulfilled by the First Century C.E.
I am no scholar. But I have crafted optics or mental lenses by which I can begin to make sense of the Bible. My 'unlearning' process has been as challenging as my 'learning' process. And I believe I am on to something. I want to share my optics with others who may want a light out of the dark cave--even if that light is but a pathetic flicker.
Let me know what optics you are utilizing. Perhaps we will discover some intellectual affinities.
T
authors david chilton (1987) and james stuart russell (1878) propose that the revelation is primarily a prophecy of the destruction of ancient jerusalem by the roman armies.
the revelation is jerusalem's armageddon (mountain of assembled roman troops).
i see the revelation as a war siren warning the first century christians of the imminent destruction of the city.
Hello Pterist,
Right you are. One such scholar is James Stuart Russell, who encapsulates the New Jerusalem and the Old Jerusalem as follows:
| The New Jerusalem | The Old Jerusalem |
| The heavenly Jerusalem | The earthly Jerusalem |
| The city which hath the foundations | The non-continuing city |
| The city whose builder is God | The city whose builder is man |
| The Jerusalem which is to come | The Jerusalem which now is |
| The Jerusalem which is above | The Jerusalem which is beneath |
| The Jerusalem which is free | The Jerusalem which is in bondage |
| The holy city | The wicked city |
| The bride | The harlot |
"The real and proper antithesis, therefore, to the new Jerusalem is the old Jerusalem: and since the city contrasted with the new Jerusalem is also designated Babylon, we conclude that Babylon is the symbolic name of the wicked and doomed city, the old Jerusalem, whose judgment is here predicted."
T
authors david chilton (1987) and james stuart russell (1878) propose that the revelation is primarily a prophecy of the destruction of ancient jerusalem by the roman armies.
the revelation is jerusalem's armageddon (mountain of assembled roman troops).
i see the revelation as a war siren warning the first century christians of the imminent destruction of the city.
Hello All,
Many thanks Chris.
As I state on my web site:
The Bible is a chronicle of conflict between dissidents [a.k.a. "prophets," and pre-eminently, Jesus] and the Establishment they opposed. As such, it eloquently illustrates the timeless struggle for freedom and justice. I don't consider Jesus "anti-Semitic" for condemning the abuses of the Jewish Establishment any more than I would consider someone "anti-American" for decrying injustice by a given administration. I do see an unwavering tension/conflict between Jesus and the Judean Establishment. I would even call his so-called "triumphal entry" into Jerusalem a street demonstration. Everything Jesus said and did was an indictment of the Sanhedrin. When I read the Bible in that radical context it makes more sense.
In the Revelation I perceive a very focused divine rage, a veritable Niagara of wrath, directed, not at a nebulous "world empire of false religion," but against a covenant-breaking, Messiah-murdering Establishment. As Jesus foretold, “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people."
With all due respect, the Abrahamic optic brings much more of the Bible into focus for me than the Narcissistic optic I formerly utilized.
Bye for now!
T
