Archive for the ‘Chiasmus’ Category

Spiritual warfare in Revelation 12:7

May 25, 2012 Comments off

In the prelude of the 70 weeks prophecy, Daniel tells us that he was praying for “the holy mountain of my God.” [Daniel 9:20] The 70 weeks outline the duration of the warfare and desolations of the holy mountain, which in Daniel 2:35 is the kingdom of God. The first two sections of the prophecy, 7 weeks and 62 weeks, and the first half of the final section, are times that apply to the earthly Jerusalem, and the units are earthly units such as years, and leap years, but the last half-week applies to the heavenly city. Jesus is represented by the stone cut without hands in Daniel 2:35. He was cut off, crucified, in the mist of the final week. When he was resurrected and ascended to heaven, the mountain of God’s house was also raised up, as foretold by Isaiah, who wrote, “And it shall come to pass in the latter days, that the mountain of Jehovah’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.” [Isaiah 2:2] The mountain of the Lord’s house, mount Zion, and Jerusalem, were at that time established in heaven, and exulted above the hills. Hebrews 12:22 says, “ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.” Read more…

Is Revelation 12 a chiasmus?

March 25, 2011 Comments off

Is there a chiastic structure in Revelation chapter 12? Some scholars support the idea, but others dismiss the theory. David A. deSilva criticized authors who proposed chiastic structures on flimsy ground, and for “(1) developing chiastic outlines by means of selective shaping of summary statements for major blocks of text; (2) discovering a chiasmus by means of selective reading of key terms; and (3) creation of a chiasmus by means of manipulation of formal markers.” [1]

Read more…

On the chiastic structure of Revelation

January 20, 2011 9 comments

A chiastic outline of the book of Revelation was proposed by Nils Wilhelm Lund, in 1942. [1] Reviews of his book viewed Lund’s claims as too revolutionary. Read more…