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 Kalk,
Thank you! Your points are well-taken.
For me, the content of the Revelation is like the difference between a Greek temple and a Jewish temple with its dimensions of worship.
GREEK TEMPLE
JEWISH TEMPLE
JEWISH HIGH PRIEST
MOLTEN SEA
All the above symbols abound in the Book of Revelation, which would be odd if the temple, the very navel of the Jewish nation, had been destroyed.
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 Fisherman,
In response to your statement, 'read the Bible!' Information changes what we know. Transformation changes how we know. 'How' we read is, in my opinion, more important that 'what' we read. By that I mean the set of assumptions we apply to a text. I assume, for example, that the entire Bible (Genesis to Revelation) is an anthology of ancient Israelite literature with no application whatsoever to “Gentiles.” My assumptions about the book function like a prism through which I filter the information. My Nebuchadnezzar post illustrates my bias.
Now I would like to add to Stirredbutnotshaken's excellent observation regarding the degenerate Judean Theocracy of the First Century C.E. The following quotation, from page 169 of The Parousia, furnishes the judicial context for the Revelation. It reinforces my conclusion that the Revelation is a covenant lawsuit against ancient Israel.
Commenting on the phrase “Christ must rule as King until he has put all enemies under his feet,” the author states,
“The language implies a violent and victorious conquest affected over hostile powers.” “Who those enemies are may be inferred from the closing history of the Theocracy. Unquestionably the most formidable opposition to the King and the kingdom was found in the heart of the Theocratic nation itself, the chief priests and rulers of the people. The highest authorities and powers of the nation were the bitterest enemies of the Messiah. It was a domestic, and not a foreign, antagonism---a Jewish, and not a Gentile, enmity---that rejected and crucified the King of Israel.
The Roman procurator was only the reluctant instrument in the hands of the Sanhedrin. It was the Jewish rule, the Jewish authority, the Jewish power that incessantly and systematically pursued the sect of the Nazarenes with the persistent malignity, and this was ‘the rule and authority and power’ which, by the destruction of Jerusalem and the extinction of the Jewish State, was ‘put down’ and annihilated. The terrible scenes of the final war, and especially of the siege and capture of Jerusalem, show us what this subjugation of the enemies of Christ implies. ‘But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me’ (Luke19:27).”
So, whatever the Hebrew Theocracy was in its inception, it certainly was otherwise when the Messiah arrived.
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,
In my opening post I focused on ancient Jerusalem as a corrupt theocracy (a government in which priests rule in the name of God; a government by men claiming to know the will of God). The back and forth debate between Preterists and Futurists will proceed ad infinitum and ad nauseam. In the final analysis an optic will work for you or it will not. When I open "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" which God gave him to show his slaves the things which would shortly take place" I am immediately presented with the figure of a high priest, in priestly attire. Jewish symbols, Jewish worship, and Jewish history abound in the book. I return to what I said at the outset, the Revelation, I believe, is a covenant lawsuit against ancient Israel.
To quote JS Russell: "the Apocalypse is nothing else than a transfigured form of the prophecy on the Mount of Olives. The Apocalypse contains our Lord’s great prophecy expanded, allegorised, and, if we may so say, dramatised. The same facts and events which are predicted in the Gospels are shown in the Revelation, only clothed in a more figurative and symbolical dress."
My purpose is to share a lens, an optic, which is radically (and for me, refreshingly!) different than anything contained in Narcissistic Futurism.
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.
Stirredbutnotshaken,
Well said!
I will respond to your post shortly.
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 Kalk ,
So many assertions; so little scriptural or secular evidence to support! If I may address but two of your claims: 'Jerusalem was not a place floating with wealth' and 'the Jews did not bear any responsibility for Jesus' death.' Really?
Even a cursory reading of the scriptures says otherwise. The following is from James chapter 5 (New International Version):
5 "Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. 2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. 4 Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. 5 You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. 6 You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you."
Sounds like a rich Establishment to me. And they oppressed and murdered the innocent one. Again, if not the ancient Jewish Establishment, then whom?
Edersheim reports: “In these streets and lanes everything might be purchased: the production of Palestine, or imported from foreign lands– nay, the rarest articles from the remotest parts. Exquisitely shaped, curiously designed and jewelled cups, rings, and other workmanship of precious metals; glass, silks, fine linen, woolen stuffs, purple, and costly hangings; essences, ointments, and perfumes, as precious as gold; articles of food and drink from foreign lands – in short, what India, Persia, Arabia, Media, Egypt, Italy, Greece, and even the far-off lands of the Gentiles yielded, might be had in these bazaars. Ancient Jewish writings enable us to identify no fewer than 118 different articles of i mport from foreign lands , covering more than even modern luxury has devised.” (Days of Vengeance, Chilton)(Italics mine).
"More than once the Jewish historian [Josephus] speaks of the magnificence and vast wealth of Jerusalem. It is very remarkable that the inventory of the spoils taken from the treasury of the temple contains almost every one of the articles enumerated in this lamentation over the fallen city,---‘Gold, silver, precious stones, purple, scarlet, cinnamon, odours, ointments, and frankincense.’ No less striking is the description given by Josephus of the spoils of the captured city, which were carried in procession through the streets of Rome in the triumph of Vespasian and Titus, and which fully justify the picture of profusion and magnificence drawn in the Apocalypse."(The Parousia, James Stuart Russell)
Jesus' Betrayal and Arrest
The following texts from John chapter 18 confirm that Jesus did not mysteriously turn up at Pilate's door, slap him in the face, and demand to be impaled. "2 Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples. 3 So Judas came to the garden, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the Pharisees . They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons."
Certainly, Jesus was executed by the Roman Government." But Jerusalem orchestrated his demise. A fact which is scripturally incontrovertible. Thus, as Jerusalem used the Roman government to execute Jesus, so God used that same Roman government to destroy Jerusalem.
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 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
