Is there a narrative to Revelation? Does it have a unifying storyline? Despite the many complexities of the book, the answer to this question is a definite yes; there is a clear storyline to Revelation.
Revelation is a tale of two cities, Babylon and New Jerusalem; these two cities are also said to be two women, the harlot and the bride (Rev. 17:1-3; Rev. 21:9-10). The judgments of Revelation culminate with the destruction of one of these women and then the marriage of the other. The harlot (Babylon) is destroyed and then the bride (New Jerusalem) becomes married (Rev. 19:1-7).
There is an exact parallel of Revelation’s contrast of two women/cities in Galatians. In Galatians 4:21-31 we are told of two women who are two wives (Hagar and Sarah) who correspond to two cities (physical Jerusalem and heavenly Jerusalem). We are told that these two women/cities are symbolic of two communities of people, those under the old covenant and those under the new covenant.
Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewomen. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all…But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. Galatians 4:21-31 NKJV emphasis added
It is obvious that the “Jerusalem above” of Galatians 4:26 corresponds to the New Jerusalem of Revelation (which comes down out of heaven, Rev. 21:2, 10); but could first-century Jerusalem (Gal. 4:25) correspond to Mystery Babylon (Rev. 17:5)? The answer is Yes! Babylon is called “the great city” in Revelation (Rev. 17:18; 18:21), The very first place in Revelation that we encounter “the great city” (Rev. 11:8) we are told that it was where Jesus was crucified (i.e. Jerusalem). Like pagan Babylon, Jerusalem had destroyed God’s Temple (i.e. Jesus, John 2:18-22) and was persecuting God’s people. In Revelation, as in Galatians (4:29), one women persecutes the other (i.e. the harlot persecutes the bride, Rev. 17:6; Rev. 18:24, cf. Matthew 23:29-37). Similarly in Revelation, as in Galatians (4:30), one of the two women is cast out (Rev. 18:21) while the other woman receives her inheritance (the Lord takes the bride as His wife).
It should be noted that, like the two women of Galatians, the two women of Revelation are also two wives. It is obvious that the bride is a wife, as she becomes married (Rev. 21:9). It is easy to miss that the harlot is also a wife (cf. Ezekiel 16:32), a widowed wife. Unfaithful Israel went from being a queen to a widow when she had her King killed (Rev. 18:7; cf. Matthew 21:5). Again, the subject of Revelation is exactly the same as Galatians 4:21-31; both are talking about two women/cities who are two wives. The contrast of these two women is being used as a vehicle to contrast the two covenants and those who were part of them.
The judgments of Revelation climax in chapter 17-19 with the destruction of the persecuting city of Babylon (Rev. 18:24) and then God marries His bride (Rev. 19:7). The exact same scenario of the burning of a wicked city (Matthew 22:7; Rev. 18:8) followed by a wedding is found in Matthew 22:
And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said: The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding and they were not willing to come. Again he sent out other servants, saying ‘Tell those who are invited “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.”’ But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. And the rest seized his servants treated them spitefully, and killed them. But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies destroyed those murders and burned up their city. Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.’ So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests. Matthew 22:1-10.
The above parable (which obviously speaks of the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem) explains why it is that right after the destruction of harlot Babylon that the bride becomes married.
After these things I heard a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying “Alleluia! Salvation and glory and honor and power belong to the Lord our God! For true and righteous are His judgments, because He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication; and He has avenged on her the blood of His servants shed by her.” Again they said, “Alleluia! Her smoke rises up forever and ever!” And the twenty-four elders and the four living creature fell down and worshiped God who sat on the throne, saying “Amen! Alleluia!” Then a voice came from the throne saying, “Praise our God, all you His servants and those who fear Him, both small and great!” And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude, as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty thundering saying, “Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns! Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready.” Revelation 19:1-7
The harlot motif is a common OT image for unfaithful Israel (e.g., Lev. 17:7; Num. 14:33; Hosea 1:2; 2:4; Jer. 2:20; 3:2-13; Ezekiel 16, 23). The harlot of Revelation is arrayed in the colors of the Temple and clothes of the High Priest (Rev. 17:4; Rev. 18:16; cf. Ex. 28). The merchandise of harlot Babylon is the merchandise that was used in the construction and furnishings of the Temple (Rev. 18:12) as well as its sacrifices (v. 13) see my article “The Merchandise of Babylon” http://planetpreterist.com/news-2786.html. The plagues of Babylon (pestilence, mourning, famine and burning, Rev. 18:8 NASB) are exactly what happened to Jerusalem (not Rome) at AD 70.
The destruction of the harlot city in Revelation is drawn from the destruction of Jerusalem in Ezekiel 16. In Ezekiel 16 God said that the nations that Jerusalem had been unfaithful with (committing spiritual harlotry) would turn on her and destroy her with fire (vv. 35-43). Harlot Jerusalem is portrayed in Ezekiel 16 as being dressed in the furnishings of the tabernacle, her “food” consisting of items used in the sacrifices (vv. 10-13). This parallels the harlot Babylon being dressed in the furnishings of the Temple and garments of the High Priest, her “merchandise” consisting of items used in the sacrifices (Rev. 18:13). Revelation 17-19 is showing, the AD 70 burning of unfaithful Jerusalem and her Temple at the end of the old covenant age. Moses was told that this would happen in the “latter days”
And the Lord said to Moses: ‘Behold, you will rest with your fathers; and this people will rise and play the harlot with the gods of the foreigners of the land, where they go to be among them, and they will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them. Then My anger shall be aroused against them in that day, and I will forsake them and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured. And many evils and troubles shall befall them, so that they will say in that day, ‘Have not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?’…and evil with befall [them] in the latter days (Deut. 31:16-17, 29).
This is the storyline of Revelation: God judges and ulitmately destroys His unfaithful old covenant wife and then marries His new covenant bride.
For more on Babylon and the theme of Revelation see:
“A Summary of Harlot Babylon” http://planetpreterist.com/news-2817.html
“The Covenant Judgments of Revelation” http://planetpreterist.com/news-5109.html
Duncan
Re: What is the Narrative of Revelation?
Let me add another comment. NT Wright (who I know carries some weight around here) seems inclined in the direction of the view that harlot Babylon= Jerusalem. Here is something I wrote on this:
Interestingly, Wright noted that some scholars are actually hostile to anyone who says the harlot is not Rome. He wrote,
Saying the harlot is unfaithful Israel should not be seen as an exegetical peculiarity. It is hardly a tangent driven by the quest for novel interpretation. Given the consistent OT portrayal of God’s unfaithful old covenant people as the harlot (Lev 17:7; Lev 20:5-6; Num 14:33; Num 15:39; Deut 31:16; Judg 2:17; Judg 8:27; 1 Chr. 5:25; 2 Chr 21:11; Ps 73:27; Hosea 1:2; Hos 2:2-5; Hos 4:15; Hos 9:1; Jer. 2:20; Jer 3:2,9,13: Jer 5:7,11; Jer 13:27; Eze. 6:9; Eze 16; Eze 23; Eze 43:7,9), unfaithful Israel should be the starting point in one’s examination of the harlot (click on some of those references for a quick overview on the harlot motif). There are only two exceptions (where a Gentile city is called a harlot) in the whole OT for goodness sake!
One of the conclusions that Wright came to in his study of the gospels is the following:
Wright further noted that his conclusion “may be held by some to carry implications for the reading of Rev. 17-19.” ibid 358
Wright is saying that if Jesus is borrowing from the language of the fall of Bablyon in talking about the fall of Jerusalem (Matthew 24:29 cf. Is. 13:10, 13) it should not be surprising that John is doing the same thing in Revelation.
Hyperpreterism Invasion
Folks — your site is being invaded by hyperpreterists (look how many times this guy references the main hyperpreterist website — planetpreterist)
Just in case you don’t know what hyperpreterism is, please read: http://opensourcetheology.net/node/1578
These guys are trying to sneak hyperpreterism in at every turn.
www.thekingdomcome.com
Re: Hyperpreterism Invasion
Roderick,
You decry how many times I make reference to a preterist website as evidence of some evil preterist conspiracy. Did you look at the references? I referenced three of my articles that happen to be on that site. They go into more depth on some of the issues that I touched on in my post.
Your criticism of me might be more effective if you backed it up with some substance. What do you think the storyline of Revelation is? Where do you think I have it wrong? Just what two women/cities that were two wives do you think John was contrasting?
Duncan
Re: Hyperpreterism Invasion
Gentlemen, could I remind you that the express purpose of this website is to develop an emerging theology for an emerging church? That can be interpreted in many different ways, but it is not such a broad purpose that any and every theological dispute can be accommodated. My view is that eschatology is of considerable importance for an emerging theology, but that needs to be demonstrated, not assumed. Please do not simply import these aggressive preterist discussions into Open Source Theology without asking how they are constructively relevant to the stated purpose.
Re: Hyperpreterism Invasion
Andrew,
An emerging theology connotes emerging from something. In this case it means a new theology emerging from the old.
On this site, the reexamination of the metanarrative of Scripture is sometimes discussed in view of this emerging theology. And, as you suggest, an emerging eschatology is part and parcel of an emerging theology. However, it appears to me that Duncan has demonstrated the relevance of his article with the stated purpose of this website. If we are examining the metanarrative of Scripture and of the Gospel to arrive at an emerging theology, the narrative of Revelation and what it means certainly will be part of that equation.
But, whether anyone likes it or not, preterism is also necessarily going to be part of this equation as well. Preterism is one the main ideas needed to reexamine the historical world of Scripture and it has helped us make great gains in forming an emerging theology (The Coming of the Son of Man owes much to preterism even if its author knew nothing of it when he wrote it). As far as descriptions go, preterism is simply theological archaeology in practice. And, as emerging theologians we must have a healthy respect for preterism, and not simply decry it because it has carries some personnel baggage.
Preterism isn’t going anywhere, it will always be part of any quest for authentic Christian theology. Duncan’s article is well within the pale of this website’s stated purpose. And Duncan’s “preterist” assertions are only as aggresive any other thought put forward here.
As you can see, I am frustrated by what appears to be an emerging prejudice against preterism here on this site. I feel this is a sad turn of events, because an honest assessment of the emerging conversation will reveal that (whether stated or not) preterism is as much a part that conversation as anything else.
Re: Hyperpreterism Invasion
I think this is quite wide of the mark and probably self-indulgent thinking. As Richard Rohr reminds us, one of the five most significant truths that we need to learn but rarely do is: “It’s not about you.”
If there is any prejudice on the open-source theology site — as one who’s been a part of this community for several years and reads most all that’s posted these days — I would suggest it’s prejudice against being rail-roaded, herded, ‘shepherded’ towards any particular system of thought.
If someone from a Reformed background, for example, was attempting to proselytise, they would arouse suspicion. As would someone from any particular camp.
I think what people here want to be able to enjoy is the free and open discussion of ideas which are (clearly) agenda-free. People want room to think.
It might be helpful for you to consider whether preterist writers do have any agenda in posting their writings. Are you doing anything different, which might be arousing suspicion?
Or are you truly just ‘enjoying the beer’ here like most of us? If so, don’t cry in it! Just put your ideas into the meley and don’t expect any favours. You’re just one voice amongst many — and remember, "it’s not about you."
shalom! - john (eternalpurpose.org.uk)
Re: Hyperpreterism Invasion
I, too, regularly read the posts here and enjoy them. However, I am free to call them like I see them. If you disagree with me then fine. No harm, no foul.
You assume that whatever preterists have written on this site have attempted to proselytize. I cannot speak for anyone other than myself, but I am certain that each person who writes here has their own agenda, including you. No one writes without a goal in mind. Is the preterist post any less worthy of objective analysis and non-prejudicial criticism? No. If you read Duncan’s post carefully you’ll see he wasn’t pushing preterism, he was pushing a new thought on how to view the narrative in Revelation. Is this not what this site is for?
As Andrew wrote, I do not quite understand why you took exception to what I have written. I contributed, others have responded, and so be it.
I love beer and never cry in it. ;)
Re: What is the Narrative of Revelation?
Andrew,
I apologize if you thought my response to Roderick was too aggressive. I understand and appreciate that you do not want to turn this into a preterist squabble board.
Having said that I do think my original post about the narrative of Revelation is legitimate. Somewhere you put forth the idea that we need to look at the bigger scriptural picture, not just proof texts. My article does that, with some elegance I think (i.e. the story of Revelation is the same as that of Galatians 4:21-31, two women/cities that are two wives who represent the two covenants). Even if one disagrees with my conclusions, however, I think the post becomes food for thought as one formulates one’s own thoughts on this matter.
Re: What is the Narrative of Revelation?
Thanks. I take your point. This whole eschatology thing can be so tricky, however, that I guess it’s important to be particularly clear about intentions and boundaries, otherwise the ‘emerging’ discussion will easily get overrun by rampaging barbarian hordes swinging their sharp-edged agendas.
See also this post: What can an emerging theology learn from preterism?
Re: What is the Narrative of Revelation?
"..discussion will easily get overrun by rampaging barbarian hordes swinging their sharp-edged agendas."
Hehe…very Luther-esque imagery Andrew :)
Re: Hyperpreterism Invasion
@ Andrew
Hi, I really enjoy this eschatology discussion and I learn a lot lot from the preterist views on books like revelation. I think it a “open source” way of talking about our sources.
I also learn a lot about the criticism towards preterism. That’s also an “open source” discussion about our hermeneutical principles.
So guys, why don’t you label your discussions “exegetical” or “hermeneutical” with cross-references to one another? I’m new and open minded in this conversation, so please give each other space and respect to disagree!
I am learning from it!
Clandestine Agenda vs Opensourced Agenda?
Or even worse yet Andrew, I submit this forum is ALREADY being overran by clandestine elitists with clandestine agendas (such as the many hyperpreterists you have hanging out here who are trying to push that view all the time without even telling people that is what they are pushing). We ALL have "agendas" if an agenda is merely seen as a point to be made, & ideology to hold. The more dangerous & dishonest folks pretend to have no agenda & no ideology & claim to merely be having "conversations".
Look, I appear to be the lone voice against the mulititude of hyperpreterists you have posting here. Who then is REALLY moving this forum in by way of agenda?
Andrew, are you going to let this forum be overran by clandestine agendas? If so, how very Eramusian of you.
www.thekingdomcome.com
Re: Clandestine Agenda vs Opensourced Agenda?
Roderick, most of us here are just chatting things over.
There’s no big war to be had, so if that’s your thing you’d probably best do it somewhere else.
Re: What is the Narrative of Revelation?
This is going to sound snobby, but it’s not meant to be. Should we not use any English translation for Revelation still based off of the Textus Receptus? I mean, for goodness sake, for much of it Erasmus translated it himself from a poor Latin text. Talk about conjectural emendation.
Re: What is the Narrative of Revelation?
I truly am an idiot, upon closer reading it was only your quote from Galatians that used the NKJV, as far as I can tell all your other links were to the ESV, so…..my bad.