Revelation 20 is best understood in what way?

[Checkpoint]

Many questions are asked about this chapter of Revelation, and answers given can differ widely.

Here are just a few questions, for example.

1. How does the chapter fit in with the theme of the whole book?

2. The "thousand years", if literal, are for what purpose? If metaphorical or symbolic, this conveys what?

3. "the first resurrection" describes what, and takes place when?

4. "the lake of fire" is what, and how is it related to "the second death"?

5. What is the nature of the reign "with Christ" that is mentioned?

[brianbbs67]

Whether Ha'satan is bound for an eternity or not, matters not to men choosing to do evil. We as a people seem to do that just fine by ourselves. So, I think that part of the debate is moot.

[peacedove]

There are only two Jerusalems in Revelation as far as I can understand it:
1. Old Jerusalem
2. New Jerusalem

The description of the New Jerusalem in Revelation suggests it is not a literal physical city...

The expression "old Jerusalem" is to the best of my knowledge not found in the book of Revelation

The book of Revelation refers to "new Jerusalem" (21:2) a "holy city Jerusalem" (21:10) a "beloved city" (20:9), "the holy city" (11:2; 22:19) "the city of my God" (3:12) and in several other places to "the city" and "a great city"

My questions are as follows:

• 
  (1) What is to stop all of the above references referring to a symbolic "Jersualem" rather than the literal city of Jerusalem?
  
  (2) If the references above not referring to the literal city of Jerusalem, what's to stop the book of Revelation being penned after the destruction of literal Jerusalem 70 CE?

Thank you,
JW

I don't really follow where you are going with this.

There is plenty to link the material in the book of Revelation to the literal physical Second Temple Jerusalem and its demise.

I'll limit myself to a single argument that is probably irrefutable and that you have ignored so far: According to Jesus Christ, all the blood of all the martyrs since Abel would be avenged upon one generation, at one time and one place, and that place was Jerusalem's house, and that event was the desolation of that house, and that generation was Jesus' generation -- Mat 23:29-39.

Why not answer the question directly:

Does Mat 23:29-39 refer to the desolation of the Jerusalem temple in A.D. 70? I am not aware of anyone who denies this.

Now, the book of Revelation states that the two witnesses are prophets and they give their testimony in Jerusalem, the holy city, where the Lord was crucified, in chapter 11. Can you answer directly, is this literal, physical Jerusalem? I don't know what you are going to reply, but I can't see how you can claim that Jesus was crucified somewhere else or that the context and location of Revelation chapter 11 is somewhere else than Jerusalem, the literal physical city, where the Lord was crucified.

The land-dwellers, a term for those in that place, Jerusalem, are the ones who didn't listen to those two prophets, and they are happy when the beast kills them and leaves their bodies unburied in the streets of Jerusalem.

Jerusalem and the land-dwellers are held responsible for shedding the blood of these two prophets. Those prophets are avenged and vindicated in the destruction of those who destroy the earth, i.e. the land-dwellers and the beast in Jerusalem.

So, if Jesus said that ALL the blood of the prophets and martyrs shed all the way back to creation, would be avenged against the generation Jesus spoke to, at the desolation of the House of Jerusalem, i.e. in 70 A.D. in literal physical Jerusalem, unless Jesus was wrong, Revelation 11 is talking about the repayment of that generation in that place and in that event.

I am not sure how you can respond here. Are you going to say Revelation 11 is talking about a metaphorical Jerusalem? A symbolic Jerusalem?

Patently the symbols are 'Sodom and Egypt' and they represent the city 'where the Lord was crucified' i.e. the literal physical Second Temple Jerusalem. I am not sure how you could make it mean something else, but I await you if you want to suggest it, incredulous that anything substantial could come of such an attempt.


I'll present a second argument. Jesus told the women of Jerusalem, mourning his death:
But turning to them Jesus said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’ Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us’, and to the hills, ‘Cover us.’ For if they do these things when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?� (Luke 23:28-31)

Patently Jesus is addressing the vindication of his blood, that was about to be shed, in and by the city of Jerusalem.

Patently Jesus is addressing his generation, those actual women mourning, and the fate to be suffered by their children. He is telling them that THEY will be bereaved of their children, THEY will see THEIR children die horrible deaths in front of their own eyes.

Patently, Jesus is predicting the fall of their city, and large scale death and atrocities upon Jerusalem that that generation would live to experience.

Patently, Jesus is invoking Old Testament prophecy against Jerusalem, and saying that the time for it to come to pass, and the guilt for which it would arrive, was being nearly completed by the act of killing him.

The prophecy included this one:
The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem ...
So man is humbled,
and each one is brought low—
do not forgive them!
Enter into the rock
and hide in the dust
from before the terror of the Lord,
and from the splendour of his majesty.
The haughty looks of man shall be brought low,
and the lofty pride of men shall be humbled,
and the Lord alone will be exalted in that day.
For the Lord of hosts has a day
against all that is proud and lofty,
against all that is lifted up—and it shall be brought low;
against all the cedars of Lebanon,
lofty and lifted up;
and against all the oaks of Bashan;
against all the lofty mountains,
and against all the uplifted hills;
against every high tower,
and against every fortified wall;
against all the ships of Tarshish,
and against all the beautiful craft.
And the haughtiness of man shall be humbled,
and the lofty pride of men shall be brought low,
and the Lord alone will be exalted in that day.
And the idols shall utterly pass away.
And people shall enter the caves of the rocks
and the holes of the ground,
from before the terror of the Lord,
and from the splendour of his majesty,
when he rises to terrify the earth.
In that day mankind will cast away
their idols of silver and their idols of gold,
which they made for themselves to worship,
to the moles and to the bats,
to enter the caverns of the rocks
and the clefts of the cliffs,
from before the terror of the Lord,
and from the splendour of his majesty,
when he rises to terrify the earth. (Is 2:1,9-21)

So, Jesus is saying that this prophecy would be fulfilled at the time that Jerusalem suffered such death and destruction and desolation, in their generation.

I don't know anyone who thinks that Jesus is talking about some other metaphorical city, to suffer some other metaphorical or real desolation in his remarks to those women. But if you think he is, let me know, and why.

Remember that Jesus taught that the blood of the prophets, who Jesus counted himself among, would be repaid at the desolation of the House of Jerusalem in his generation. So, in invoking judgement of God against Jerusalem for killing him, he must be invoking that predicted event.

But back to Revelation. Revelation 6 invokes the same prophecy, in response to the cry of the martyrs for vengeance AGAINST THOSE WHO DWELL ON THE EARTH (i.e. land of Israel):

When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?� Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.

When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?� (Rev 6:9-17)

So, can we deny that those martyrs, crying out for their blood to be avenged, are included in Jesus summary:
all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. (Mat 23:35-36)
?

So, can we deny, that the same prophecy, where the people would seek to hide in the ground from the wrath of God that Jesus said would be fulfilled against the generation of land-dwellers in Jerusalem, would be fulfilled against them for the blood of these martyrs too?

Or, are we going to propose a different judgement to avenge the blood of a different set of martyrs, in a different or metaphorical place, at a different time? Upon what basis could or should we attempt such an unusual exegetical endevour?

As I said, I am not sure where you are going with this metaphorical Jerusalem idea, but please answer these connections and arguments so at least I can see if you can, as well as what you are in fact suggesting instead.

Your second question is hypothetical, and the condition is not met, but I suppose if the book is not about the downfall of that city then maybe it is a different book and it could have been written at any hypothetical time, consistent with whatever it is about.

[JehovahsWitness]

My questions are as follows:

• 
  (1) What is to stop all of the above references [in Revelation] referring to a symbolic "Jersualem" rather than the literal city of Jerusalem?
  

Thank you,
JW

I'll limit myself to a single argument that is probably irrefutable and that you have ignored so far:

According to Jesus Christ, all the blood of all the martyrs since Abel would be avenged upon one generation, at one time and one place, and that place was Jerusalem's house, and that event was the desolation of that house, and that generation was Jesus' generation -- Mat 23:29-39.

So? So what?! Why should the fact that the first century judgement of the generation of Jews ( in the literal city Jerusalem) impose a literal reading on any reference to Jerusalem in the book of Revelation?

• Sure literal "Jerusalem" paid for the wicked deeds from "Abel to Zechariah" but but who would pay for the persecutions from 70CE to 2018 and later? Indeed, Jesus had explained there would be other persecutions and other martyrs, and we have already agreed there is anOTHER Jerusalem (a symbolic one) . Since history attests that well after the destruction of Jerusalem, Christians continued to be persecuted and executed for their faith, what stops the "Jerusalem" being a symbolic one and the martyrs being those that died forward of that time?

REVELATION CHAPTER 11

Now, the book of Revelation states that the two witnesses are prophets and they give their testimony in Jerusalem, the holy city, where the Lord was crucified, in chapter 11. Can you answer directly, is this literal, physical Jerusalem? I don't know what you are going to reply, but I can't see how you can claim that Jesus was crucified somewhere else or that the context and location of Revelation chapter 11 is somewhere else than Jerusalem, the literal physical city, where the Lord was crucified.

Revelation 11 does not speak about a "holy city" it speaks as about "The Great city" ; there is no mention of the word "Jerusalem " in this chapter.

[T]he book of Revelation states that the two witnesses are prophets and they give their testimony in [strike]Jerusalem[/strike], the [strike]holy[/strike] city, where the Lord was crucified, in chapter 11. Can you answer directly, is this literal, physical Jerusalem?

No, it is not.

.. but I can't see how you can claim that Jesus was crucified somewhere else

Jesus was indeed executed in physical literal Jerusalem but this passage is not speaking about his literal execution. The book of Revelation is highly symbolic and the reference to Jesus execution in fact is symbolic of the martyrdom of his spirit anointed brothers who while on earth represent him. Jesus had already explained any treatment of his "brothers" was exactly the same as teatment of him (see Mat 25:40), so the "Great city" were "Jesus" was killed represents the corrupt forces of evil that would persecut spirit anointed born again Christians during "The Lords day"


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

DUPLICATE

[peacedove]

My questions are as follows:

• 
  (1) What is to stop all of the above references [in Revelation] referring to a symbolic "Jersualem" rather than the literal city of Jerusalem?
  

Thank you,
JW

I'll limit myself to a single argument that is probably irrefutable and that you have ignored so far:

According to Jesus Christ, all the blood of all the martyrs since Abel would be avenged upon one generation, at one time and one place, and that place was Jerusalem's house, and that event was the desolation of that house, and that generation was Jesus' generation -- Mat 23:29-39.

So? So what?! Why should the fact that the first century judgement of the generation of Jews ( in the literal city Jerusalem) impose a literal reading on any reference to Jerusalem in the book of Revelation?

• Sure literal "Jerusalem" paid for the wicked deeds from "Abel to Zechariah" but but who would pay for the persecutions from 70CE to 2018 and later? Indeed, Jesus had explained there would be other persecutions and other martyrs, and we have already agreed there is anOTHER Jerusalem (a symbolic one) . Since history attests that well after the destruction of Jerusalem, Christians continued to be persecuted and executed for their faith, what stops the "Jerusalem" being a symbolic one and the martyrs being those that died forward of that time?

REVELATION CHAPTER 11

No, no, I never said any reference to Jerusalem, either by name or description or otherwise, in Revelation had to be literal, physical Second Temple Jerusalem.

Whether a reference is to that Second Temple Jerusalem is something that depends on the context and the manner that it is used.

Where did Jesus talk about a further round of martyrdom after the fall of the literal Second Temple Jerusalem?

Hebrew eschatology does not have multiple rounds of martyrdom, age upon age. There are two overarching ages, Jesus' 'this age' and 'the age to come.' Jesus' 'this age' was the age he was born into, the age of Moses and the law. The 'age to come' was to be the age of Messiah and his Kingdom.

When Jesus predicted the fall of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, his disciples immediately responded asking for the sign of the end of the age, i.e. the end of 'this age' and the full introduction of 'the age to come' (Mat. 24). Jesus affirmed that the end of the age and the associated events would occur in the same timeframe he just mentioned in Mat 23, i.e. 'this generation' marked by the desolation of the House of Jerusalem. There is no proper basis for making 'this generation' in Mat 24 different from 'this generation' in Mat 23. Jesus never corrected his disciples and the gospel author suggests no error on their part concerning the connection between the fall of the Second Temple and the end of the age.

So, if you are proposing a further round of ages, with persecution and vindication of the blood of the martyrs, in fulfillment of other prophecies, where do you get this from and how do you justify it?

Now, the book of Revelation states that the two witnesses are prophets and they give their testimony in Jerusalem, the holy city, where the Lord was crucified, in chapter 11. Can you answer directly, is this literal, physical Jerusalem? I don't know what you are going to reply, but I can't see how you can claim that Jesus was crucified somewhere else or that the context and location of Revelation chapter 11 is somewhere else than Jerusalem, the literal physical city, where the Lord was crucified.

Revelation 11 does not speak about a "holy city" it speaks as about "The Great city" ; there is no mention of the word "Jerusalem " in this chapter.

That is a bad and unacceptable interpretation method. Just because a specific word or phrase does not appear, it does not mean that the concept or topic is not there. The topic of concept can be shown from other material, e.g. alternative words or descriptions, or other allusions.

[T]he book of Revelation states that the two witnesses are prophets and they give their testimony in [strike]Jerusalem[/strike], the [strike]holy[/strike] city, where the Lord was crucified, in chapter 11. Can you answer directly, is this literal, physical Jerusalem?

No, it is not.

Thanks for the direct, albeit surprising, reply.

.. but I can't see how you can claim that Jesus was crucified somewhere else

Jesus was indeed executed in physical literal Jerusalem but this passage is not speaking about his literal execution. The book of Revelation is highly symbolic and the reference to Jesus execution in fact is symbolic of the martyrdom of his spirit anointed brothers who while on earth represent him. Jesus had already explained any treatment of his "brothers" was exactly the same as teatment of him (see Mat 25:40), so the "Great city" were "Jesus" was killed represents the corrupt forces of evil that would persecut spirit anointed born again Christians during "The Lords day"


JW

I am not sure how you can suggest that the deaths of the two witnesses is in a different place from the death of Christ himself. The force of the text seems to be that they died at the hands of the same city and people, and in the same place.

And when they have finished their testimony, the beast that rises from the bottomless pit will make war on them and conquer them and kill them, and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city that symbolically is called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified. (Rev 11:7-8 ESV)

The more literal translation is 'where also our Lord was crucified' (Young's Literal Translation). The Greek text uses the word 'kai' meaning and or also, so the point of the text is that they were killed in the same place Jesus was.

The place is identified as 'the street of the great city.' The reference to the street is possibly an allusion to Luke 13:26 when the Jews under the judgement of Christ are thrown out, and they appeal for mercy: Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.’

The Great City is given two symbolic meanings: Sodom and Egypt. These symbols are of Israel, particularly in her last days judgement. For example Moses wrote the curses of the covenant to include suffering the plagues of Egypt (a significant theme in the book of Revelation and threatened against Israel in Deut 28:27) and to return to Egypt (Deut 28:68). Moses prophesied that in Israel's last days, she would become Sodom:

For their vine comes from the vine of Sodom
and from the fields of Gomorrah;
their grapes are grapes of poison;
their clusters are bitter;
their wine is the poison of serpents
and the cruel venom of asps.
“‘Is not this laid up in store with me,
sealed up in my treasuries?
Vengeance is mine, and recompense,
for the time when their foot shall slip;
for the day of their calamity is at hand,
and their doom comes swiftly.’ (Deut 32:32-35)

Paul and the Hebrews writer both quote and apply this prophecy to unbelieving Israel OF THEIR DAY. And Jesus alludes to it in his charge that the Jews 'fill up the measure of their fathers' (Mat 23:29-39) in reference to the judgement of 70 A.D.

So, if you want the symbols, there they are, expressly identified as such. Symbolically Sodom and Egypt.

Then the book interprets the symbols by stating it is where their Lord was crucified. It is deeply inappropriate and unjustified to transfer and apply this geographical identifier and make it a FURTHER symbol, and that provides no actual decoding of the symbol!

You have appealed to Mat 25 as providing a basis for transferring 'Jerusalem' or 'the city where the Lord was crucified' to some other unknown city in the distant future. The problem with this is that Mat 25 is a continuation of the Olivet Discourse about the end of the literal, physical Second Temple Jerusalem, and it is a united discourse.

In Mat 25 we have the wedding (25:1-13). This is the wedding when 'The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.' (22:7) and the same wedding when 'the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness' (Mat 8:12), both references to the judgement of 70 A.D. upon the undeserving guests who had been invited in Isaiah 25:6-8 and who would suffer the reversal of Isaiah 65:13-15.

Then we have the parable of the master who goes away and then comes back in judgement (25:14-30). The judgement of 25:30 is the same judgement of 8:12, indicating that it has the same target and is not separate. The parallel in Luke 19 helps explain the context and meaning:

As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately. He said therefore, “A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. Calling ten of his servants, he gave them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Engage in business until I come.’ But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’ When he returned, having received the kingdom, he ordered these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by doing business. The first came before him, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made ten minas more.’ And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant! Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.’ And the second came, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made five minas.’ And he said to him, ‘And you are to be over five cities.’ Then another came, saying, ‘Lord, here is your mina, which I kept laid away in a handkerchief; for I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man. You take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ He said to him, ‘I will condemn you with your own words, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? Why then did you not put my money in the bank, and at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’ And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has the ten minas.’ And they said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten minas!’ ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’�

So, the parable is about those who rejected the king, the nobleman and his kingdom, the citizens of the kingdom who did not want him to rule over them. He is nevertheless made king, and upon his return, he slaughters the citizens who opposed him and his kingdom. This can only rightly be applied to the generation of Jews Jesus ministered to who rejected his kingdom and opposed him and his rule. The return of the king is the retribution and repayment of these enemies with slaughter.

25:31-46 are a continuation of the same judgement upon the same people at the same time. This is expressly the coming of the kingdom:
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. (25:31)

The judgement is then parallel to the previous parable we mentioned:
But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me. (Luke 19:27)

When the nobleman returns he exercises authority of the kingdom, by means of judging and defeating his enemies, those who opposed his kingdom at the time he went away. Since it is the same king and the same kingdom and the same authority, it is the same judgement in 25:31-46.

You can't use Mat 25:31-46 to change the topic, the time-frame or the people. The eschatological framework and context are the arrival of the Fifth Kingdom, and the destruction of the Fourth. You can't invent subsequent kingdoms and judgements in bible prophecy and then use this as a magic transformation ticket to turn Second Temple Jerusalem into City X in the 20th Century or 21st or whenever or whoever you have in mind to apply it to by this transference method.

[JehovahsWitness]

You can't use Mat 25:31-46 to change the topic, the time-frame or the people.

I didn't

The Topic: Symbolic "Jerusalem"
The time frame: The Lord's day (see post # 56 below) and beyond...
The people: God's loyal spirit anointed servants

RELATED POSTS (Index)
Full list of my posts up to this point in this thread

How does Revelation chapter 20 fit into the overall theme of the book of Revelation?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 219#904219

When is The Lord's Day (Rev 1:10)?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 433#905433]

Why is placing the events of Revelation 20 in the first century problamatic?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 861#904861

Does Revelation 22:6 saying the events would happen "shortly" necessarily mean in the first century ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 233#905233

Is there any evidence to suggest that Satan was NOT abyssed between 30-65 CE?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 247#905247

How are we to understand REVELATION 20:1-3 (Satan bound & Abyssed)?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 325#905325




FURTHER READING: The Book of Revelation—What Does it Mean?
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/q ... evelation/[/quote]

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 55 by JehovahsWitness]


QUESTION: When is "The Lord's day" as mentioned in the book of Revelation in Chapter 1 verse 10?

The book of Revelation is highly symbolic, its reference to "days" are not speaking about 24-hour days but to specific and limited periods of time.


THE LORDS DAY=THE LORDS PRESENCE

The Apostle Paul often associated "The Lord's day" (The day of our Lord) with the time of the rewards offered to born again Christians (compare Phil 2:16). Faithful of spirit anointed Christians were to be rewarded after they die with heavenly life with Jesus - ruling with him as kings (see Rev 20:6). But when will that be? A clue can be found in the following bible passage:

1 CORINTHIANS 15: 23-26 - NWT

But each one in his own proper order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence. Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.

So what do we learn? That Jesus will rule as a king and bring all God's enemies to nothing. That "those that belong to Christ" are somehow associated with the beginning of this rule "during his presence" . So: Heavenly Reward = Christ's Presence = The Lords Day


WHAT WILL BE THE SIGN OF YOUR PRESENCE (Mat 24:3)?

The disciples understood that the beginning Christ's rule would be marked by his "presence". The period during which spirit anointed Christians are rewarded with heavenly life. As has been noted above, that "presence" or Pariousia in Greek, would mark the beginning of the Lords day. In Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13 Jesus helped us to understand that his "presence" would be marked by events far into the future. Some of the events unique to their time in scale (worldwide conflicts, global (not just national) persecution of Christians, a worldwide preaching work by true Christians and the greatest period of tribulation the planet earth has ever seen*). We have only witnessed such events in our 20th and 21st centuries, the climax of which (the destruction of the wicked, the judgement of the world and the reward of the righteous) are yet in the future.

* Terrible as the destruction of Jerusalem was, it could in no way be regarded as more catastrophic for the planet than later disasters and conflics or indeed the flood of Noah's day

CONCLUSION There is much more to say about the Parousia (christs "presence") and the year of the beginning of kingdom rule, but the above demonstrates that rather than taking Revelation to be retrospective, looking at past events, it is Prophetic in nature speaking of events that would happen many thousands of years after the book itself was penned.

RELATED POSTS

Are we living during Christs Presence (the Lord's day) ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 842#898842

To see other posts in this thread dealing with the book of Revelation see the LINK below
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 432#905432

[peacedove]

You can't use Mat 25:31-46 to change the topic, the time-frame or the people.

I didn't

The Topic: Symbolic "Jerusalem"
The time frame: The Lord's day (see post # 56 below) and beyond...
The people: God's loyal spirit anointed servants

The nature and identity of the Jerusalem of Rev 11 I provided an extensive analysis showing that the symbols were Sodom and Egypt and that the the interpretation of the symbols was the literal, physical Second Temple Jerusalem. You have not addressed that at all.

I don't disagree that the time-frame of Rev 11 is also the timeframe for the Day of the Lord or the Lord's Day, or that this is the parousia. However, you have ignored that the Lord's Day and the parousia is the day of judgement upon Israel when the following happens:

“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, for these are days of vengeance, to fulfil all that is written. Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. (Luke 21:20-24)

Which is the day of the fulfillment of Isaiah 2-4:
1. Concerning Judah and Jerusalem (2:1)
2. Concerning the last days of Judah and Jerusalem (2:2)
3. Concerning the coming of the kingdom and the salvation of Israel (2:3-5)
4. Concerning the Day of the Lord (2:11-12,17,20)
5. When the people of Israel would hide in the caves and holes in the ground (2:19-21), which Jesus applied to Jerusalem in his generation in Luke 23.
6. When Jerusalem would suffer famine and become a heap of rubble (3:1-7)
7. When Jerusalem would be Sodom (3:9)
8. When God would judge the managers of the vineyard (3:12-15)
9. When 'your men will fall by the edge of the sword' (3:25, quoted by Jesus in Luke 21 above)
10. When Jerusalem would be repaid for her bloodguilt and cleansed by fire (4:4) that Jesus said would happen at the fall of the temple in his generation (Mat 23:29-39).

Jesus said that his parousia would be marked by the fulfillment of prophecy, including this one, in his generation. But, according to the source prophecy in Isaiah 2-4, and elsewhere, this is THE DAY OF THE LORD.

So the DAY OF THE LORD = the day of the Lord's judgement upon the evil tenant farmers, the time when the men of Israel would fall by the edge of the sword, at the desolation of Jerusalem.

However, you are placing the DAY OF THE LORD of Revelation 11, when those who destroyed the land were destroyed, in a different timeframe, and against a different Jerusalem, a symbolic one.

The people you are changing too. The focus of Rev 11 is upon those who received the testimony of the two witnesses, and who were judged for shedding their blood. These people can be identified specifically by the references to Sodom and Egypt, which in the bible are symbols of last days Israel, and by the geographical identifier of the place where ALSO their Lord was crucified.

You have not addressed the evidence that the two witnesses die in the SAME PLACE as their Lord was crucified. This is because you want to CHANGE the place, the time-frame and the people being subject to the judgement, notwithstanding your denial.

[peacedove]

[Replying to post 57 by peacedove]

It appears that JW, any anyone else who contends otherwise, is unable or unwilling to attempt to rebut the evidence I presented that the Great City of Revelation 11, is:
1. Symbolically Sodom and Egypt, and
2. Non-symbolically literal, physical Jerusalem, WHERE their Lord was also crucified, identified as such by numerous Old Testament and New Testament references and links and teachings.

This is problematic for Monta's claim, agreed by Checkpoint that:

Quote:
they have no literal meaning as they do not speak of earthly realities but spiritual/heavenly/divine.

Aptly put.
That is basically what I have come to see applies to the whole book.

As well as JW's claim that Sodom and Egypt are symbols of SYMBOLIC Jerusalem.

Revelation 11 refers to two witnesses who give testimony in and against the Great City, and who are martyred in the Great City, where ALSO their Lord was crucified.

Although it is possible that the two witnesses and their story are symbols, if they are symbols rather than referring to two literal individuals, what is their story symbolic of, if not:
1. God's provision of prophets (and/or the Law of Moses) to the Old Covenant people, those land-dwellers in their Great City, Jerusalem, and
2. The persecution and killing of the prophets God sent to the Old Covenant people, those land dwellers, and
3. The vindication of the blood of the prophets at and through the judgement of the Old Covenant people, particularly their rulers, at and through the judgement of the Great City, Jerusalem.

Is not the judgement of Jerusalem for shedding the blood of the prophets identified by Jesus as a specific and literal judgement on Jerusalem, in Jesus' this generation, at the desolation of the Second Temple, in Mat 23:29-39?

So, how can it be maintained that the book is about and only refers to heavenly and spiritual things that have no literal and specific application and meaning, in this case for the fall of Jerusalem?

The New Testament refers to both 'earthly realities' and 'spiritual/heavenly/divine.' Specifically, the 'earthly realities' of the Old Covenant system, city, temple, legal and political structure, and the 'spiritual/heavenly/divine' realities of the New Covenant system, city, temple, and its attendant legal and political system. The former, are types and shadows of the latter (Col 2; Heb 8, 10).

Patently, the relationship between the two are proved by the teaching of the book to the Hebrews which compares and contrasts:
1. The Old Creation, made by man, with hands, the earthly tabernacle, and
2 The New Creation, made by God, without hands, the heavenly tabernacle.

According to the book of Hebrews, the earthly tabernacle system was to be judged and reformed and pass away, and it was, at the time of writing of that book, ABOUT TO HAPPEN.

But this is perfectly parallel with Revelation 11 (and the Apocalypse as a whole), where the outer court of the temple was to be trampled upon, and Jerusalem was to be judged for shedding the blood of the prophets, at the time that the kingdom of God comes.

Since they are parallel passages, they deal with the same time and the same event, they have the same teaching as to the relationship between the old and the new. The identity of the old must therefore be the same. We cannot divorce Revelation 11 from its earthly realities, portrayed as the outer court of the temple and the streets of the Great City, where also their Lord was crucified.

This being the case, we are not wrong to notice other links and references to that event elsewhere in the book.

And if the book is predictive of and is about that judgement and that passing away of that Old Covenant system, at that time, the book was written before that event consummated -- shortly before, according to the book itself.

And if the passing away of the Old Creation is after the end of the 1000 years, the book, according to its own terms, was written shortly before that, and the 1000 years cannot be something that extends on (or fails to be fulfilled) for centuries after the book was written.

We need to honour the testimony and the text of the book itself, in interpreting and applying the teaching and instruction of the book. The book was written to specific First Century churches in Asia minor, about the sufferings they were then enduring, and promising them relief that would be both timely but also conclusive, final and complete against those who were then persecuting them, and who were responsible for the blood of the prophets. If we know the Old Testament and the words of our Lord himself, we should not be in the dark about which city and people piled up their bloodguilt for this up to heaven itself, and the time and manner of their repayment.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 57 by peacedove]

It appears that JW, any anyone else who contends otherwise, is unable or unwilling to attempt to rebut the evidence I presented that the Great City of Revelation 11, is:
1. Symbolically Sodom and Egypt, and
2. Non-symbolically literal, physical Jerusalem, WHERE their Lord was also crucified, identified as such by numerous Old Testament and New Testament references and links and teachings.

This is problematic for Monta's claim, agreed by Checkpoint that:

Quote:
they have no literal meaning as they do not speak of earthly realities but spiritual/heavenly/divine.

Aptly put.
That is basically what I have come to see applies to the whole book.

As well as JW's claim that Sodom and Egypt are symbols of SYMBOLIC Jerusalem.

Revelation 11 refers to two witnesses who give testimony in and against the Great City, and who are martyred in the Great City, where ALSO their Lord was crucified.

Although it is possible that the two witnesses and their story are symbols, if they are symbols rather than referring to two literal individuals, what is their story symbolic of, if not:
1. God's provision of prophets (and/or the Law of Moses) to the Old Covenant people, those land-dwellers in their Great City, Jerusalem, and
2. The persecution and killing of the prophets God sent to the Old Covenant people, those land dwellers, and
3. The vindication of the blood of the prophets at and through the judgement of the Old Covenant people, particularly their rulers, at and through the judgement of the Great City, Jerusalem.

Is not the judgement of Jerusalem for shedding the blood of the prophets identified by Jesus as a specific and literal judgement on Jerusalem, in Jesus' this generation, at the desolation of the Second Temple, in Mat 23:29-39?

So, how can it be maintained that the book is about and only refers to heavenly and spiritual things that have no literal and specific application and meaning, in this case for the fall of Jerusalem?

The New Testament refers to both 'earthly realities' and 'spiritual/heavenly/divine.' Specifically, the 'earthly realities' of the Old Covenant system, city, temple, legal and political structure, and the 'spiritual/heavenly/divine' realities of the New Covenant system, city, temple, and its attendant legal and political system. The former, are types and shadows of the latter (Col 2; Heb 8, 10).

Patently, the relationship between the two are proved by the teaching of the book to the Hebrews which compares and contrasts:
1. The Old Creation, made by man, with hands, the earthly tabernacle, and
2 The New Creation, made by God, without hands, the heavenly tabernacle.

According to the book of Hebrews, the earthly tabernacle system was to be judged and reformed and pass away, and it was, at the time of writing of that book, ABOUT TO HAPPEN.

But this is perfectly parallel with Revelation 11 (and the Apocalypse as a whole), where the outer court of the temple was to be trampled upon, and Jerusalem was to be judged for shedding the blood of the prophets, at the time that the kingdom of God comes.

Since they are parallel passages, they deal with the same time and the same event, they have the same teaching as to the relationship between the old and the new. The identity of the old must therefore be the same. We cannot divorce Revelation 11 from its earthly realities, portrayed as the outer court of the temple and the streets of the Great City, where also their Lord was crucified.

This being the case, we are not wrong to notice other links and references to that event elsewhere in the book.

And if the book is predictive of and is about that judgement and that passing away of that Old Covenant system, at that time, the book was written before that event consummated -- shortly before, according to the book itself.

And if the passing away of the Old Creation is after the end of the 1000 years, the book, according to its own terms, was written shortly before that, and the 1000 years cannot be something that extends on (or fails to be fulfilled) for centuries after the book was written.

We need to honour the testimony and the text of the book itself, in interpreting and applying the teaching and instruction of the book. The book was written to specific First Century churches in Asia minor, about the sufferings they were then enduring, and promising them relief that would be both timely but also conclusive, final and complete against those who were then persecuting them, and who were responsible for the blood of the prophets. If we know the Old Testament and the words of our Lord himself, we should not be in the dark about which city and people piled up their bloodguilt for this up to heaven itself, and the time and manner of their repayment.

Viewing it as they would have at the time, Isreal is the culprit. For sure. Mystery Babylon. Could be code for that or another city, Rome. Or us, here in the US, many times in the OT, kingdoms fell in a day. I am sure God's wrath falls harder on those in direct contact with Him or chosen by Him.