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?

[peacedove]

So, we should conclude [...] that the 1000 years was a period from about 30 A.D. to about 65 A.D.

QUESTION: Could the years between 30 and 65 CE be described as "Satan Free"?

The book of Revelation 20 verses 1-3 speak of a thousand year period when the nations of the earth would be free from Satanic influence. It depicts Satan the Devil being "bound" inactive and incapacitated and forcefully thrust into a deep pit far from mankind and unable to harm them. Do the years 30-65 in the first century fit this description let us consider some of the historical events.

- Jesus faces several attempts on his life by his fellow Jews

- Satan enters Judas and influences him to betray Jesus

- The Jewish religious leaders (condemned as being like their "father" Satan) succeed in having Jesus condemned for sedition

- Pontius Pilate, representing the Roman authorities have Jesus tortured and executed

- Early first century Christians are persecuted and prominent Jewish leaders such as the Apostle James, Steven and others are executed

- Christians are hounded out of Rome and persecuted by Emperor Nero

- The Apostle Paul and others are beat, imprisoned and persecuted in other ways by Roman authorities

What part of all the above indicates Satan the Devil was not busy during this period?

• How could Satan have entered Judas if he was bound, inactive at the bottom of a pit?
• Is there any evidence that the nations of the world experienced relief from Satanic influence during these years and if not why was that not remarked?
• What biblical support is there to equate 1000 years to a period of 35 years?
• Are there any time prophecies that support the placing of the 1000 years to the first century?
• If all the events in Revelation take place at the same time and the 1000 years is between 30-65 CE why did John (in approx 95 CE) say these events must "soon take place" (indicating future event) instead of "took place" (past tense)?

CONCLUSION: There is nothing in scripture that supports the period of 30-65CE as being "Satan free" on the contrary the Christian congregation faced bitter persecution during this period. If we can think Satan was behind the persecution and execution of Jesus as the bible specifically states he was, there is no reason to believe he was not behind the persecution of the early Christians during this period

JW

Why not tell us what you think the bible teaches OUTSIDE of Rev 20 on:

The binding of Satan

The loosing of Satan

The deception of the nations by Satan

The war or the battle of Gog and Magog

The defeat of Satan

The judgement of the dead according to what is written in the book

The defeat of death and Hades

I would rely on the following sources and interpretations in doing this, but you reply with yours:
The binding of Satan
Mat 12 and the binding of the strong man in the generation of Jesus, 2 Thes 2 and the restraint of the man of lawlessness contemporary with Paul's writing in 51 A.D.

The loosing of Satan
Mat 12 (return of the evil spirit later in the generation Jesus spoke to), 1 Pet 5:8; Rev 12:10-17; 2 Thes 2 and the removal of the restraint of the man of lawlessness

The deception of the nations by Satan
Mat 24; Rev 12:10-17; 2 Thes 2

The war or the battle of Gog and Magog
Ez 37-39; Is 2-4; Mat 24; Rev 19; Dan 12 (the resurrection of Israel to life, the resurrection of the rebel forces for the great battle / great massacre / great feast of birds on flesh, at the tribulation of time, times and half a time, resulting in the shattering of the power of the holy people.)

The defeat of Satan
1 Cor 15 (the defeat of the powers, authorities and rulers who were the enemies of Christ), Rom 16:20; Gen 3; Is 27 (killing the snake), Mat 3 and 23 (defeat of the brood of vipers) 2 Thes 1-2 (defeat of the man of lawlessness providing relief to Paul's contemporary audience).

The judgement of the dead according to what is written in the book
Dan 12 the judgement at the time the power of the holy people is completely shattered.

The defeat of death and Hades
1 Cor 15 (the defeat of the powers, authorities and rulers who were the enemies of Christ), Is 25 - 26 (swallowing up death at the time that the blood of the martyrs is avenged)

[JehovahsWitness]

Why not tell us what you think the bible teaches OUTSIDE of Rev 20 ...

I'll certainly consider doing so after you answer the five (5) questions in my post #38 above (I see you have replied but you absolutely have not answer the five questions.

JW

[peacedove]

[Replying to post 41 by JehovahsWitness]

OK, your 5 questions


How could Satan have entered Judas if he was bound, inactive at the bottom of a pit?


Satan's binding is not necessarily total inactivity, it is ineffectiveness in preventing the spread of the gospel and ineffectiveness in deceiving the nations.

Judas' agenda -- a political-military messiah and kingdom -- was indeed the agenda of Satan that he tempted Jesus with, taken up by the Zealots in that generation. That Satanic agenda was restrained until 66 A.D. when the Zealots took over Jerusalem and revolted against Rome.

If we have the right context and interpretation of what the deception and non-deception of the nations is about, then this qualifies what activity should be prevalent or thwarted, obviously. To ask why other agendas or evil activities was or was not restrained is inappropriate in such a case.


Is there any evidence that the nations of the world experienced relief from Satanic influence during these years and if not why was that not remarked?


Already addressed above, the Satanic Zealot agenda was thwarted for many years, as historical sources testified, until about 65 A.D. with the revolt in 66 A.D.

It was remarked by Jesus in Mat 12 and Paul in 2 Thes 2, as I understand and interpret those passages. There are plenty of positive and happy passages and remarks in the gospels and letters about the spread of the gospel and of peace during that period, but also warnings about the impending escalation of conflict, persecution, deception, apostasy, rebellion and the prophesied bloodbath that would destroy the Jewish / Zealot Satan / beast. The 1000 years is not the defeat of Satan, only his restraint.


What biblical support is there to equate 1000 years to a period of 35 years?


The book of Revelation is highly symbolic, and large numbers are often symbolic. Do I need a biblical reference for that?

Can 1000 years stand for a long period of time, a generation? Why should a long period like 1000 years be not symbolic, but a short period like 1 hour be agreed to be symbolic?

It just happens that the events of the 1000 years happen to correspond to the start and end of a near-40-year generation that starts around 30 and ends around 65. And there are plenty of teachings that there was to be a final utterly corrupt generation of Israel, a generation Jesus, Paul and Peter identified as their own.


Are there any time prophecies that support the placing of the 1000 years to the first century?


I don't know about 'time prophecies' but there are statements about events at the start or end of the 1000 years that indicate a time for those. An example is Isaiah 27 which predict the following events:
1. the death of the serpent (27:1)
2. the redemption and favour on the vineyard (27:2-3)
3. The filling of the world with fruit and the resurrection of Israel as a new shoot (27:6)
4. The atonement for Israel's sin via the destruction of the temple altar and the desolation of the fortified city (Is 27:9-10).
5. God has no compassion on his people (27:11)
6. The time of the dry wood, destined to be burned up (27:10-11)
7. The harvest (27:12)
8. The blowing of the great trumpet and the salvation of the remnant of Israel (27:12-13)

There are a lot of datable events here.

1. is dateable to the end of the short time after the end of the 1000 years.

2. can be dated to 70 A.D. by Mat 21:33-41. Combining 1 and 2. therefore shows that the 1000 years ends a short time before 70 A.D.

3. is datable to 70 A.D. by Mat 24:14, which states that the end -- of the age of the temple and of the temple -- is when the gospel has been preached to all nations. Paul said that the world was filled with fruit -- and therefore that Is 27:6 was fulfilled -- at the time he wrote Col 1:6.

4. The destruction of the temple element is datable to 70 A.D. by Mat 23:29-39. The salvation of Israel and the forgiveness of Israel's sin affirmed to be happening in Paul's day and through Paul's ministry in Romans 11. In particular Paul insists God was NOW (then) showing mercy on Israel in Romans 11:31 (some later scribes maybe weren't convinced and later omitted the word NOW).
(The simultaneous judgement and salvation is Israel is potentially paradoxical, until we understand that the salvation of Israel is the remnant and the rest are the ones being judged at the same time.)

5. Seems to belong to the time of Israel's judgement in 70 A.D.

6. The dry wood is datable to 70 A.D. by Luke 23:28-31.

7. The harvest Jesus said was at the end of the age (Mat 13:39), and he said that the end of the age was when the temple fell in 70 A.D. (Mat 24).

8. The blowing of the great trumpet Paul said was at the resurrection of 1 Cor 15, which was when the law that was the strength of sin would be overcome, and when the rulers, authorities and powers that were Christ enemies would be destroyed. Jesus said the trumpet would be blown in his generation at the fall of the temple (Mat 24:31).

It seems a lot easier to find events at the end of the 1000 years than during the 1000 years. The main features of the 1000 years themselves are the ruling of the saints with Christ, that Paul said was contemporary with his letter to the Ephesians (Eph 1-2) and that John said was already fulfilled (Rev 1:6). And the spread of the gospel if you can equate that the the non-deception of the nations.


If all the events in Revelation take place at the same time and the 1000 years is between 30-65 CE why did John (in approx 95 CE) say these events must "soon take place" (indicating future event) instead of "took place" (past tense)?


Because the letter was written about 68 A.D. The date of writing is testified by the enemies suffered at the time: the Synagogue of Satan, those who say they are Jews but are not. The focus on Israel is also shown in 1:7 and in chapter 11 which is set in the city where the Lord was crucified, and addresses judgement on that city for shedding the blood of the prophets, a judgement Jesus said was to happen at the desolation of the Jerusalem temple mentioned in 11:2. 11:15-18 clearly places the judgement on the city where the Lord was crucified at the time of the coming of the kingdom of God at the time that the blood of the prophets was avenged, a time Jesus taught was at the fall of the Jerusalem temple in his generation. The book claims that the coming of Jesus Christ to establish the kingdom in power was going to happen very soon after the book was written.

Remember the book is a single prophecy. So, if we can identify the enemy, the persecuting power, we can identify the time that the book was written and what all the parts of the book must in some proper way relate.

That enemy and that persecuting power is:
1. About to fall at the time the book was written
2. PRESENTLY persecuting the saints
3. The tribes of the land, who mourn for the one they pierced
4. The synagogue of Satan, those who say they are Jews but are not
5. Those responsible for killing the old testament prophets
6. Those responsible for killing prophets who were sent to and make their testimony in the city where the Lord was crucified
7. Those who dwell on the land and the kings of the land
8. In fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy
9. Of those who filled up their sins to heaven

Other than Jerusalem, who fits the bill?

There would be no point writing a book like that after the persecuting power had fallen.

The book cannot plausibly be dated in 95 A.D.

[JehovahsWitness]

Satan's binding is not necessarily total inactivity, it is ineffectiveness in preventing the spread of the gospel and ineffectiveness in deceiving the nations.

INTRODUCTION: While we cannot say to what degree Satan will remain "active" while abyssed, what we can conclude is that Revelation's reference to the binding and the abyssing of Satan represents complete restriction when it comes to launching ANY attacks on God's people. Rather than presenting a picture of a continued battle in which Satan's attacks are merely "ineffective" in one area, Revelation presents us with a picture of Satan's complete and utter subjugation.

REVELATION 20: 1-3 reads as follows (NWT)
And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven with the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. He seized the dragon, the original serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for 1,000 years. 3 And he hurled him into the abyss and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not mislead the nations anymore until the 1,000 years were ended.

Revelations presents several elements connected to the event; do those elements suggest complete restriction, TOTAL ineffectiveness of any Satanic attacks or merely the PARTIAL "ineffectiveness" of an ongoing 1000 year battle between Satan and his enemies during which he still gets to enjoy some victories but suffers one major defeat in one area?

• THE KEY: We notice the angel descends with a key. A key is used to lock something away, the implication being that this angel has the power to deny Satan access and freedom. The account doesn't specifically say what he does with this key but it seems clear for the period in question whatever measure are taken will be firm and authoriative.
  
  A GREAT CHAIN: Satan is bound by not just a chain, but "a great chain". This implies that his bodily movements will be restricted. If someone is bound in chains the restricted range of his movements means he would no longer be in a position to fight his enemies at all. Once a soldier is in chains the fight is over; he may struggle against the chains (which will more likely than not only result in his own personal discomfort) but he is no longer in a position to gain any further victories. Does it seem reasonable that the picture of "Satan in chains" depicts a situation where Satan continues to gain victories in battle?
  
  SEIZED: Satan clearly doesn't go willingly, indeed the action of being "seized" implies that some force was used. Seizing is not a defensive movement its an aggressive offensive movement. So rather than saying "Satan attacked God's people but failed" this movement implies the Angel and his allies attacked Satan and succeeded. In any case to continue his fight against Jesus and his own, Satan would need to first free himself from the grasp of captor but Revelation doesn't suggest this at all, rather it implies he is completely dominated by stronger forces. Is it reasonable to concluded that while being completely dominated Satan was successful in killing the son of God as a 30-65 CE abyssing of Satan would require?
  
  BOUND: Revelation has Satan "bound" for 1000 years. It doesn't say there is a fight for 1000 years, it does not say they battle, back and forth, for one thousand years, it certainly doesn't say Satan wins some battles but loses a major one for 1000 years , is says he (Satan) is bound. One dictionary defines TO BIND as tie or fasten (something) tightly together. and presents synonyms such as: tie, tie up, fasten, secure, tether, hitch, chain, fetter, shackle, and moor. Does this give the impression of someone who continues as they have done in the past enjoying free movement but failing in one just endeavor or rather does it convey the idea of total restriction?
  
  THE ABYSS: To further emphasis the idea of total restriction the bible then speaks of a Satan, bound in chains thrown into an "abyss".
  

  According to Parkhurst's Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament (London, 1845, p. 2), the Greek abyssos means very or exceedingly deep. According to Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford, 1968, p. 4), it means “unfathomable, boundless.

  So Satan is symbolically thrown into a deep deep hole, distanced from his enemies and restricted from any contact with the outside world or "nations" as the bible puts it. So in order to continue any attempts to mislead and gain any further victories he would not only have to free himself from his chains but somehow climb out of the pit he had been thrown into. If Satan is deep in a pit and unable to manipulate people, who was behind the vicious persecution of the Christians by both the Jewish and the Roman authorities during the period of 30-65?
  
  SEALED: Not only is he throw to the depths of a fathomless pit which in itself would be difficult to exit, but the pit itself is "sealed". Suggesting that any exist is closed to Satan. One can but wonder if the angel uses his key at this moment, but in any case a seal implies a firm closing that would render exit impossible to the captive. Is it reasonable to concluded that Revelation wants us to understand that during thee 1000 years Satan unchains himself, climbs to the top of the pit, somehow exists it and kills Jesus enjoying his sweetest victory to date?

Imagine a dangerous criminal, captured, bound in chains thrown in a secure cell with all exits closed off. How many crimes do you think that individual could commit while in that situation? Which do you think is a more reasonable interpretations of Rev 20:1-3: Satan defeated, seized, chained, thrown in a deep pit which is in turn sealed shut is a symbol of him (Satan) being put completely out of action or being free to continue his battles, failing in one thing but having victories in a continued ongoing fight?

In case their was any doubt as to the totality of Satan's restriction the bible passage concluded that "he [Satan] would not mislead the nations anymore" The narrative goes to greath lengths to convey the notion of Satan's personal restiction and lack of personal freedom during this period. Does it seem reasonable Jesus would, presumably refering to Satan, in the year 33 CE say ... "I don't have much more time to talk to you, because the ruler of this world approaches."* if that very one was chained and sealed in a bottomless pit at the time?

*Jh 14:30

CONCLUSION: Any interpretation that flies in the face of the context and narrative to the contrary should be questioned. That Revelation 20:1-3 should be interpreted to be speaking of a free Satan failing in some of endeavors when the narrative does everything it can to convey the idea that during this period Satan is not free at all but completely restricted and put out of operation, is totally unreasonable and should be rejected.

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

SATAN THE DEVIL , THE LAKE OF FIRE and ...THE BOOK OF REVELATION

[JehovahsWitness]

The book of Revelation is highly symbolic [...]...the letter was written about 68 A.D. [...] Other than Jerusalem, who fits the bill?

If the book is "highly symbolic" what stops the "Jersualem" mentioned in it being a symbolic "Jersualem" rather than a literal one? And if the references to Jerusalem are not literal what's to stop the book of Revelation being penned after the destruction of 70 CE?

REVELATIONS 21:2
I also saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband

Why do most Jehovah's Witnesses not eat the bread or drink the wine at their memorial commemoration?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 20#p961920

[peacedove]

[Replying to post 43 by JehovahsWitness]

So your case is that the language of Satan being bound suggests complete disability.

But in this context, the text tells us what it means to bind Satan:
so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while

Necessarily, the text derives its principal meaning from the interpretation of the symbol (the binding of Satan) from that stated meaning.

Without addressing these issues, you are in danger of taking symbolic language in a general rather than a context-specific manner, which might be generally correct (or plausible) but incorrect or inappropriate in this specific context.

But back to the binding and sealing of Satan in the abyss with a lock and a key. We have a VERY close parallel here:

And the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star fallen from heaven to earth, and he was given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit. He opened the shaft of the bottomless pit, and from the shaft rose smoke like the smoke of a great furnace, and the sun and the air were darkened with the smoke from the shaft. Then from the smoke came locusts on the earth, and they were given power like the power of scorpions of the earth. They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any green plant or any tree, but only those people who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads. They were allowed to torment them for five months, but not to kill them, and their torment was like the torment of a scorpion when it stings someone. And in those days people will seek death and will not find it. They will long to die, but death will flee from them.

In appearance the locusts were like horses prepared for battle: on their heads were what looked like crowns of gold; their faces were like human faces, their hair like women's hair, and their teeth like lions' teeth; they had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the noise of their wings was like the noise of many chariots with horses rushing into battle. They have tails and stings like scorpions, and their power to hurt people for five months is in their tails. They have as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit. His name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek he is called Apollyon. (Rev 9:1-11)

We can see the target and focus and context of this text is the land (Greek ge, the earth / land / dirt). This land is normally the land of Israel. These locusts have obvious military descriptions. These military characters are given authority over the land, i.e. they are the rulers of the land, the kings of the land, who obtained that status by military action or rebellion. So the suggested meaning here is that the land of Israel will be taken over by military forces who rule ruthlessly and destructively. This suggests that the binding of Satan and sealing him into the abyss is to delay this from taking place.

Another parallel is Revelation chapter 11. Here the beast that came up from the abyss makes war on and kills the two witnesses in Jerusalem (Rev 11:7). This again shows that the binding of Satan and sealing him into the abyss is so that this means that the beast / Satan cannot have military power over Jerusalem by means of the war.

So we should parallel Satan / the beast / the locust-kings. They all come up from the abyss -- we suggest at the same time as a military force that took over Jerusalem in 66 A.D. and ruled ruthlessly, killing their enemies and those suspected of wanting peace with Rome, and eventually destroying the city and the temple in 70 A.D.

The union and cooperation of Satan and the beast are clear in the book of Revelation:

And they worshipped the dragon [Satan], for he had given his authority to the beast, and they worshipped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it?�

And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months. It opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God, blaspheming his name and his dwelling, that is, those who dwell in heaven. Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation, and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain. If anyone has an ear, let him hear:
If anyone is to be taken captive,
to captivity he goes;
if anyone is to be slain with the sword,
with the sword must he be slain. (13:4-10)

This is the same beast that trampled the holy city for 42 months (11:2), the same beast that killed the two witnesses, the same beast that made war, and the same result: death by the sword and captivity for the survivors. This is also the same land-dwellers and the same great city, where the Lord was crucified, referred to elsewhere in the book. This beast is given authority by the dragon, Satan, and is his instrument and the expression of his deception of the nations.

The release of Satan from the abyss is the same meaning and event as the release of the beast from the abyss: it signifies one thing, the outbreak of military conflict and the take over by military strongmen of Jerusalem. Nothing else is suggested or implied by the releasing of Satan, and nothing other than not this is suggested by his being bound and sealed in the abyss.

Also, the meaning is coloured by the meaning of the term or character 'Satan'. I understand that satan is not so much as a character but a role or title, the opposer or enemy or adversary. It is possible that we have multiple satans in different parts of the bible or in life. For example, is this satan the same satan that accused and tested Job, or a different one?

You have not touched on:
1. Who or what is THIS 'satan' here in THIS passage, nor
2. What is the deception of the nations, or the non-deception of the nations or what is the war that THIS satan prosecutes after he is released for a little while at the end of the 1000 years.

If this passage is referring to a specific and narrow meaning of Satan, you are apparently wrong to conclude his being bound and sealed in the abyss here refers to all satans and all activity of hostility or opposition that you might like to call Satanic or even that the bible calls Satanic.

You have not also dealt with parallel or possibly parallel passages to discuss:
1. Whether you think they are parallel or to what extent, and if not, upon what basis you propose to distinguish or differentiate them
2. How your interpret the characters or meaning of the parallel passages.

The specific passages I think that need to be discussed here are:
1. The binding of the strong man (Mat 12)
2. The fall of the dragon from heaven down to the land (Rev 12:3-17), particularly the short time that he has to persecute the woman, and the fall of Satan like lightening and the power of the disciples over the demons in Luke 10:17-19
3. The then-present activity of lawlessness at work by the man of lawlessness in 51 A.D. who was then being restrained, but would later be released and revealed, lead or be involved with the revolt, and then meet his demise, in 2 Thes 2.
4. The war, when Gog and Magog rise for battle, having gathered together the deceived nations against the camp of God's people from Ez. 38-39.
5. Ephesians 1-2 and other passages that talk of the events during the 1000 years as then present, e.g. reigning with Christ and being a kingdom of priests, and the work during this period, as it relates to the fulfillment of the Great Commission.

There are also some more characters that are quite often assumed or claimed to be Satan that I think you should discuss:
1. The ruler of this world referred to in John 12:31; 14:30 and 16:11.
2. The prince of the power of the air in Eph 2:2

Another issue is the death of Christ. Who are the rulers and authorities disarmed in Col 2:15, and were they disarmed by the crucifixion, or the resurrection, and at that time or by means of that event at a later time? In the same way what is the meaning of:
that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. (Heb 2:14-15)?

Given that there is so much to discuss on the topic, why have you carried out such a narrow and specific verbal analysis of Rev 20 only?

[peacedove]

The book of Revelation is highly symbolic [...]...the letter was written about 68 A.D. [...] Other than Jerusalem, who fits the bill?

If the book is "highly symbolic" what stops the "Jersualem" mentioned in it being a symbolic "Jersualem" rather than a literal one? And if the references to Jerusalem are not literal what's to stop the book of Revelation being penned after the destruction of 70 CE?

REVELATIONS 21:2
I also saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband

In Revelation we have a lot of symbols, but a significant number of them are given an interpretation. If we are given a symbol, and then given an interpretation, we should hold that stable. Often the symbol is interpreted the first time it is used.

Revelation is also the tale of:
1. Two women, the prostitute and the bride
2. Two cities, the Great City, Babylon, and the New Jerusalem
3. Two powers, Satan and his Beast and the False Prophet, and Jesus and his saints

Revelation tells the story of the demise of the prostitute, and the marriage of the bride.

Revelation tells the story of the fall of the Great City, Babylon, the the arrival of the New Jerusalem.

Revelation tells the story of the fall of the kingdom of Satan and his Beast, and the coming of the kingdom of Jesus Christ and his saints.

These are three sets of symbols which have the same non-symbolic meaning. So we have the Prostitute, who is the Great City, Babylon, who is ruled by Satan and his Beast. And we have the bride, who is the New Jerusalem, who is ruled by Jesus Christ, and his saints reigning with him.

These symbols are not entirely novel, in fact they are mostly from the Old Testament. The prostitute is from Ez. 16 and is a standard symbol of Judah / Jerusalem. In fact the Old Testament refers to the prostitute many times, Judah and Israel are the prostitute sisters.

Paul in Gal 4 discusses the two women, the Egyptian Hagar, who 'corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children' and Sarah is
the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written,
“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labour!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.� (Gal 4:26-27)

The Great City, Babylon, is responsible for shedding the blood of the prophets and saints. Jesus said Jerusalem was responsible for that.

The Great City is first mentioned in the book in 11:7, where it is explained and located:
the great city that symbolically is called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified

So, Babylon = the Great City = Jerusalem the city where the Lord was crucified and
Babylon = the one guilty of the blood of the prophets and saints = Jerusalem.

This is not symbolic Jerusalem this is Jerusalem that is not the New Jerusalem, i.e. it is the OLD Jerusalem.

The powers and kingdom of the beast is the powers and kingdom of Jerusalem. But this is Jerusalem under revolutionary military rule. The beast is the Fourth Beast, the one that rose after the Greek kingdom's domination over Israel was overthrown by the Maccabees. This Maccabees hammer ruled Israel like iron and even under later Roman domination, it continued as the Judean kingdom Jesus said would be crushed by the stone (Mat 21:42-45), which is the Fifth Kingdom (Dan 2). This kingdom was taken over by the Zealot movement that again seized control in 66 A.D. by armed revolution and military force, restoring the national independence of the kingdom. This was what was contemporary with the writing of the book, and this beast is what John prophesied would destroy old Jerusalem and leave her desolate.

The symbolism is comprehensible and stable because:
1. It comes from the Old Testament where we can understand its motifs and uses and references
2. It is taken up by other New Testament writers and applied by them in various ways. We need to honour the applications they made of these symbols.
3. The book of Revelation explains many of its symbols by stating their equivalent symbol or non-symbolic meaning.
4. The symbolism has its application contemporary with the writing of the book, according to the book itself. This means we can comprehend the symbolism by becoming more familiar with the events of the First Century, particularly those in Jerusalem from 66 to 70 A.D. (Which, by the way, is fairly complicated and entirely unknown by most Christians).

Perhaps if we got to know the actual Jewish history of 66-70 A.D. we would be saved the embarrassment of the Newspaper Exegesis plaguing modern Christianity.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 45 by peacedove]

This is not symbolic Jerusalem this is Jerusalem that is not the New Jerusalem.

So you recognize there IS a symbolic "Jerusalem"? Which specific scripture in Revelation are you refering to when you say "this" is not a reference to symbolic Jerusalem? And which specific scripture in Revelation your opinion DOES refer to "symbolic Jerusalem"?

JW

[peacedove]

[Replying to post 45 by peacedove]

This is not symbolic Jerusalem this is Jerusalem that is not the New Jerusalem.

So you recognize there IS a symbolic "Jerusalem"? Which specific scripture in Revelation are you refering to when you say "this" is not a reference to symbolic Jerusalem? And which specific scripture in Revelation your opinion DOES refer to "symbolic Jerusalem"?

JW

Not necessarily. I said that the non-symbolic Jerusalem is in the book of Revelation, referred to symbolically as various names, such as Egypt, Sodom, Babylon.

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

I am not sure of any references where you might get the two confused. The New Jerusalem is referred to under other names, so it appears, elsewhere in the bible:
Jerusalem above in Gal 4:26
Heavenly Jerusalem in Heb 12:22

Paul said to his audience that they were already the children of the Jerusalem above.

The latter reference is equivalent to:
Mount Zion
the City of the Living God
Innumerable angels in festal gathering
The assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven
The judge of all
The spirits of the righteous made perfect
Jesus the mediator of the new covenant
The sprinkled blood better than Abel's

So, I would say we come to the New Jerusalem by being gathered together into the body of Christ. The Hebrews writer said they had already come to the heavenly Jerusalem even before the destruction of the old Jerusalem. Does this make it symbolic? Is that what you are getting at?

The description of the New Jerusalem in Revelation suggests it is not a literal physical city, but it describes the restoration of man into the fellowship with God.

[JehovahsWitness]

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

RELATED POSTS

Why is placing the events of Revelation 20 in the first century problamatic?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 61#p904861

Does Revelation 22:6 saying the events would happen "shortly" necessarily mean in the first century ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 33#p905233

Is there any evidence to suggest that Satan was NOT abyssed between 30-65 CE?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 47#p905247

How are we to understand REVELATION 20:1-3?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 25#p905325

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