Come with me, if you will, on an adventure of biblical imagination in Revelation 21 and 22. The New Jerusalem that is described there by John is mostly taken to be a place in which the people of God dwell with the presence of God—but what would happen if we interpreted everything in the vision as a description not of their place, but of the people themselves? And what then happens if we use that as a way of imagining the destiny of the people of God in the current day?
The reason for asking these questions comes from some writing I have been doing in the last couple of months. I was asked to write a short study booklet (of around 15,000 words) on Revelation, for small groups meeting for six sessions. And for the final session, I was once more reading Rev 21, and was struck forcibly by the opening claim John makes at the start of this vision:
I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband (Rev 21.2).
There is no doubt that the use of ‘bride’ is a personal metaphor for the people of God. It has been used earlier in Revelation to signify the people of God (the ‘saints’ or ‘holy ones’) as they experience oppression in the 42 months of their wilderness wanderings between the exaltation of Jesus and his return (‘The gentiles will trample it…’, 11:2). And previous use of the personal metaphor of the people of God as the bride in 19:7–8 identifies the adornment of her fine clothing as ‘the righteous acts of God’s people’, which connects this vision to the earlier, less developed nuptial imagery of 14:4–5. The personal adornment and the jewels of the city are neatly connected by the background text Isa. 61:10, where the the ‘bride adorns herself with jewels’.
I will greatly rejoice in the LORD; my soul shall exult in my God, for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation; he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself like a priest with a beautiful headdress, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels. (Is 61.10)
This kind of nuptial imagery, with the Messiah as bridegroom and the people of God as his bride, is present in the gospels (Matt. 9:15; 25:1–2; Luke 5:34; John 3:29) as well as Paul (2 Cor. 11:2).
But there is another reason why we might press the ‘city’ imagery to be that of a people rather than a place: John also emphasises that the city is the ‘dwelling place’ of God (Rev 21.3), and the fact that the city is a cube, thus looking like an enormous Holy of Holies in the temple, confirms this. But with the (anticipated? recalled?) destruction of the physical temple in Jerusalem in AD70, the NT consistently transfers temple language to the new covenant Israel of God, that is, the Jewish-Gentile followers of Jesus. Thus Jesus declares his own body to be the new temple presence of God in the world in John 2.19 (a claim picked up at his trial in Mark 14.58); Paul develops his metaphor of the followers of Jesus as his body from his Damascus Road encounter (‘Why are you persecuting me?’) so that both the community and individuals within it are God’s temple and his dwelling place (1 Cor 3.16–17, 1 Cor 6.19). In fact, Paul goes so far as to actually draw on the exact OT image that John makes use of in Rev 21:
What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” (2 Cor 6.15)
Paul is here making an ethical appeal to the Corinthians, on the basis of the spiritual understanding of the ekklesia as the holy dwelling place of God. But what is fascinating here is that he is drawing on a range of OT texts. Firstly, he is drawing from Lev 26.12, which is the promise looking forward to the settlement of the people in the Promised Land. But then he is also drawing on Jer 32.38 and Ezek 37.27, which are both re-purposing this future promise to look forward to the end of exile and the restoration of God’s kingly rule over his people when they are restored to that land.
And here’s the thing: this is the move that Revelation is constantly making—combining promises of the exodus with promises of the end of exile. This is found most clearly in the use of the equivalent time periods ‘three and a half years’, ’42 months’ and ‘1,260 days’ that we find in chapters 11 and 12. The number 42 corresponds to the desert wanderings, since the total time in the desert is 42 years if you include the sojourn at Kadesh Barnea, and the people stop at 42 places listed in Num 33. But John’s calculation using ‘perfect’ months of 30 days each makes this equivalent to the time of ‘tribulation’ in Daniel 7.25 and 12.7. For John, the followers of Jesus are both in a time of exodus wanderings, heading towards the Promised Land, and in a time of ‘tribulation’ as they await final deliverance, which is first enacted by Jesus’ death and resurrection, but only completed with the descent of the Holy City. And for Paul, these promises are clearly fulfilled in Jesus.
The question then arises: can we read the vision of the Holy City completely in those personal terms, as people rather than place? I checked back in my commentary, and saw that I held back from this. At the start, I comment on verse 2, ‘Different aspects of the report that follows will emphasise both aspects, of the city as the dwelling place of God and the dwelling place of God’s people’ (p 340), and I return to the language of ‘place’ several times in the following pages: the city is the ‘dwelling place of God’s people’ (p 348), its gates are the way that God’s people find their entrance into the city (p 349), and ‘the city is the home of the priestly people of God’ (p 352).
There are good reasons in the text for moving from ‘city as people’ to ‘city as place’. Stephen Pattemore, in his monograph The People of God in the Apocalypse (SNTS Monograph series 128, 2004) notes some of the reasons, principally the nature of the metaphorical language, particularly in the second half of the vision.
R H Gundry ‘The New Jerusalem: People as Place not Place for People’, NovT 29 (1987) pp 254–64, argues that the New Jerusalem represents only the people of God, with no remainder of allusion to a place for them to live. This becomes increasingly difficult to sustain in the later parts of the second vision (21.24–7, 22.1–5). Schüssler Fiorenza…argues that the city is distinguished from the saints. It seems rather that the imagery is fluid, suggesting both identification and distinction (Pattemore, p 200 n 11).
I am not sure I am persuaded by Pattemore’s reticence here. After all, the later parts of the vision he refers to includes the idea that ‘the nations walk by its light’ (Rev 21.24), which corresponds very directly to Jesus’ declaration in Matt 5.14 to his followers that ‘You are the light of the world’. And the river that flows down the centre of the city symbolises (I would argue) the presence of the life-giving water of the Spirit, which elsewhere in Scripture flows in and from believers themselves. And the tree of life provides fruit, and its leaves are for healing; elsewhere in the New Testament, the fruit of the Spirit are personal things found in the people of God, who themselves minister healing in the name of Jesus.
So what does happen when we press this to be a personal vision of the people of God rather than a place?
The city is on a great, high mountain (Rev 21.10): the people of God are visible, like a city on a hill (Matt 5.14), and they draw all sorts of people to them.
‘It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal’ (Rev 21.11). The attractiveness of the people is due only to the presence and glory of God in their midst, and it is this which draws people, rather than any particular quality of its own. Jasper has characterised the appearance of ‘the one on the throne’ in the opening vision of heavenly worship (in Rev 4.3)—so the people of God look stunning and impressive to the extent to which their character reflects the character of God. And they are to have a transparency about them; the idea of being ‘clear as crystal’ suggests that there is no pretence.
The city has ‘great high walls’ (Rev 21.12). If we read this as about people not place, then rather than being contained in a place of safety, the people themselves are a place of safety. The gates are constantly open (Rev 21.25, since gates of a city in the ancient world close at night, and in the New Jerusalem there is no night), so the people of God constantly hold out a welcome to others to join them. But angels guard the gates, and ‘nothing impure will ever enter it’ (Rev 21.27); there is always an open welcome, but this is received by repentance, forgiveness and cleansing that comes through the death of Jesus for us.
‘On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel’ (Rev 21.12). The way into the people of God is through understanding the story of God’s dealings with his people all through the history of Scripture, and becoming a part of that story through Israel’s Messiah, Jesus. I find it continually striking that Paul, writing to the very mixed Jewish-Gentile community in Corinth (and probably a good deal more Gentile than Jewish), simply assumes that the story of Israel is now the story of this new Jesus community, and that they should take Israel’s scriptures as their scriptures.
‘There were three gates on the east, three on the north, three on the south and three on the west’ (Rev 21.13). Where ancient cities had gates usually only on one side, this city can be accessed from every direction. There is no limit to the different ways in which people can join to become part of the people of God.
‘The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb’ (Rev 21.14). The people of God are themselves built on the foundation of the apostolic testimony about Jesus, which we now have in the Scriptures of the NT, rooted in the OT. That is why, for example, Luke emphasises that the new community attend daily ‘to the apostles’ teaching’ (Acts 2.42).
‘The wall was made of jasper, and the city of pure gold, as pure as glass’ (Rev 21.18). The mention of jasper again symbolises the character of God—but the image of gold consistently represents faith, sometimes in the context of being purified through testing, often by persecution (see 1 Cor 3.12, 1 Peter 1.7, and especially Rev 3.18). Gold as pure as glass might then symbolise a people with pure faith and absolute trust in God, perfectly refined by having come through the most severe of tests.
‘The twelve gates were twelve pearls, each gate made of a single pearl’ (Rev 21.22). Within the text, these pearls are a counter-point to the pearls worn by the harlot Babylon (Rev 17.4), and within John’s context this refers to the ostentatious delight taken by the extremely wealthy in pearls, which were valued more highly than diamonds. In the gospels, the ‘pearl of great price’ stands for the kingdom (Matt 13.45–46), though John does not seem to make any connection there. But in wider culture, pearls have symbolised wisdom gained through experience, as a reflection on the way pearls form over time around a piece of grit in the oyster. So here we might have an image of the people of God blessed with unimaginable and incomparable wisdom, born of the experience of being faithful to God in an alien world.
‘The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendour into it’ (Rev 21.24). As I mentioned above, this resonates with Jesus’ teaching to his followers that ‘You are the light of the world’ (Matt 5.14). But John goes further; not only does the wise and illuminating presence of God amongst and in his people shed light on the whole world—his people are even hospitable to the best that the wider world has to offer, the ‘splendour’ of the kings of the earth. In my commentary, I note that this is ‘one of the most important and challenging statements in the whole of the text’.
Taken as a whole, the nations seem to be constantly opposed to God and his people. They trample the holy city (11:2); they are angry with God (11:18); they were seduced by the great prostitute (14:8, 18:3) and deceived by the magical spells of her prosperity (18:23); they are deceived by Satan and make war with the lamb in the final battle (19:15; 20:8). And yet, from the beginning, Jesus is the rightful Lord over them (1:5; 12:5) and shares his authority with his followers (2:26) and God is ‘king of the nations’ (15:3). The same is true of the kings of the earth. They hide from the wrath of the lamb (6:15); they are ruled by the prostitute who is the great city (17:18) and ‘commit adultery’ with her (17:2, 18:3) and also make war on the rider on the white horse (19:19). Yet they too are subject to the rule of Jesus from the beginning (1:5), and the vision of the holy city makes true de facto on the earth what has always been true de jure in the economy of God (p 356).
Finally, if we read the imagery personally rather than architecturally, then the water of life signifying the gift of the Spirit flows not so much through a city as through God’s people, and the fruit of the tree of life grows in them, and it is their ‘foliage’ that provides healing.
I think there is more that could be said, but I hope you get the idea. I didn’t press these things in this way in my commentary—but I feel that it is quite a valuable way to read the text. (And it also goes to show that, however many times you read about a biblical text, and even write about it, there is more to be said!)
But what difference might it make to us now, in practice? Some readers of Rev 21 want to take it in quite a realised way—as a description of the present reality of the church, or at least what the church might be in the present (I think Simon Woodman, in his SCM Core Text, reads it in this way). I don’t find that persuasive, due to the strongly future perspective that these chapters have, in contrast to the earlier parts of the book.
But it does offer us a picture of what we are heading to—so that, even if this will never be fully realised in this age, we at least begin to see signs of this, and it might shape our ambitions for what we are in the process of becoming.
What it might mean is that God is seeking to form us into a people in his likeness, who are transparent in our integrity and have nothing to hide. We become a safe place for others to find refuge. We constantly are open to welcome people in, of every kind, coming from every direction—but at the same time there is nothing evil or unclean to be found in our midst, since the Spirit of God is forming us in holiness and purity. We are shaped by both the story of Israel, which has become our story, and the apostolic testimony to the life and truth of Jesus. Our faith, that is, our complete trust in God, has been purified to perfection by faithfulness in the face of trials and difficulties, so that our trust in God is without flaw. As a community, we are marked by the wisdom of the ages—and we offer a place of hospitality to all that is best in the world around us. People of all faiths and none look to us for wisdom, integrity, and insight.
In one sense, there is nothing new here; all these remarkable ambitions can be found elsewhere in the Scriptures. But John’s direct and striking imagery, doing theology through architecture, gives a new edge to this sparkling vision.
Can we hold this before us, next time we ‘meet together’ on Zoom…?
(You can buy my commentary on the Book of Revelation in the Tyndale series here.)
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media, possibly using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, would you consider donating £1.20 a month to support the production of this blog?
43 thoughts on “Is the New Jerusalem a place—or a people?”
Wonderful material. Thanks so much.
The 12 Apostles are the new children of God, the new 12 sons, the new 12 tribes, the new people of God, the new Israel, the new Jerusalem, the new Temple, the body of Christ. The are the foundation stones of the house of God. That we who are one with Christ live in.
Yes…and of course they are all Jewish…!
YES AND AMEN!
Thanks for this.
Because the New Jerusalem is coming in the present tense it is here now as we look up. The saints who have gone before are in it and part of it. At the same time it is the Tree of life on both sides of the river. Imagine an oasis pool surrounded by date palm trunks which are actually one living organism. –one tree, many trunks, on both sides of the river. I also like to imagine a golden palanquin carried aloft from The Queen’s palace down to Solomon’s palace. A golden cube with the bride within carried by 12 bearers, protected by 12 armed guards…. I could go on…. Thanks Ian
Thanks! I am not quite so convinced about the present tense though. We have a foretaste in what might begin to happen now—but in the narrative this is clearly future…?
1. Present, future?
“Behold the dwelling place of God is with ma.. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God….
“Behold. I am making all things new” Rev 21 : v 3 -5a
This is the voice from the throne.
(“New ” is kainos, indicating a change of character or quality, transformation rather than obliteration, not just something next in chronological order.)
This is the same thought in 7:15-17 where believers are sheltered in God’s presence. reverting to Leviticus 26 ;11-12 and Echoed in Ezek. 37:27 and description of the eternal temple in Ezek. 43:7.
There is also a harking back to Isaiah, 65:19, 25:7-8; 51:10; 43:18-19; 65:17.
(But, for EMPHASIS
“I am making all things new”, does not indicate that God is doing this right now-
– “Rather, it is a “prophetic present” tense, where the future fulfilment is so certain that it can be spoken of as being already accomplished. Similarly Romans 8:30 where our future glorification is spoken of in the past tense as something that is so certain that it can be spoken of as already realised.” )
2. The New Jerusalem.
This is based on Ezekiel’s vision (chpts 40-48). “but whereas Ezekiel saw a temple, a city a land. john’s vision combines all three into a picture of the end- times presence of God with his people, in which the city, the temple and the land are one.” This is expanded in more detail with reference to the
2.1 the initial appearance of the city,
2.2 its radiance, measurements, gates and walls and materials
2.3 features of the city – no temple for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb
2.4 the saints, righteous people of God, figuratively constitute the new Jerusalem
in the book, the temple the presence of god himself
3 Temple is represented by symbols of God’s presence in the City
3.1 the river of the water of life down the centre representing fellowship with God and Christ, Rev 22:3-5 and may speak of the Holy Spirit (John 7:37-39, Ezek. 36:25-27, John 4:10-24)
3.2 the tree of life on either side of the river,
3.3 This encapsulates the three persons of the trinity in the midst of the eternal city.
Source: “Mystery Explained, a simple guide to Revelation”: David H Campbell
He has a first degree (Toronto Uni) and Masters degree (Durham Uni) in theology and was a former New Frontiers Pastor in England.
Rev 21 says ‘the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God.’ NIVUK
I’m not sure but although the context seems to be in the future it also seems to me to be saying all the time ‘coming down’. A present reality. I can’t explain properly.
In the narrative, it was future for John, But now as the consummation has taken place and the Old Jerusalem(Jerusalem on earth) is no more. It is present tense. Christ made a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek is our High Priest and Our King. We now reign on the earth in Him. When we keep saying future, we are speaking as though He has not fulfilled all things and He has. In this man Adam we have been made quickening spirits. Paul, Peter, and the others wrote in the New Testament prior to the destruction of the temple and all with it. The last days of the old covenant have gone. Shiloh(Christ- peace has come_ He is God with us. No more should we seek to go to Jerusalem for we dwell in Him and He in us. The kingdom is not here nor there but in us. The scriptures have been written for us and those events for us. If we continue to preach future than we are responding to Christ as the Pharasees and Saducess.
We must stand up and proclaim that we are already victorious. We have already overcome. It is finished! Christ Reigns and because He reigns we reign! The grave no longer has victory and Death has lost its sting. Those that passed away in Christ no longer have to sleep in the grave or wait to be clothed. We are evermore more with the Lord. NO longer are we to seek life among the grave of destroyed Jerusalem. Those in Christ, We are the city of God. We are Mt. Zion. We are right now, not in the future.
Thanks Benita. I would agree that, in many ways, we are already reigning with him. Yet that is not yet fully realised, and there is more to come, surely?
What does Hebrews 12 say? “But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels…” Is “we are come” in the present tense? I think that we are the city, but that city is not yet completed. In Revelation 7 we see the 144,000 sealed. Later, in chapter 11, the holy temple, the altar and the worshippers are being measured and the holy city set to be be trampled. Is John measuring the people to see if they measure up to the full stature of Christ? If we are the temple, then the outer court may somehow be symbolic of the flesh which must to put to death. Later, we see the holy city in the shape of a perfect cube, and the living stones turned into jewels through the pressure and heat of tribulation. The bride is now ready, having made herself ready for her Husband.
I wonder if the trampling of the outer court has anything to do with what Jesus said about His people being salt and light. If the salt loses its saltiness, it becomes good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled by men. And of course, we are the light of the world, a city on a hill that cannot be hid. We don’t put our light under a bushel, but on a candlestick, which is exactly what the seven churches and the two witnesses are called. We are the light that lights up the heavenly city.
This is replacement theology! JESUS will come back to earth and rule the whole world from Jerusalem for 1000 years then comes the New Heaven and the New Earth! Listen to Dr. David Reagan and listen to Dr. Ron Rhodes on end times chronology.
This is twin covenant theology! Your literal reading of the millennium makes no sense! Read my teaching on end times chronology! https://grovebooks.co.uk/products/b-82-kingdom-hope-and-the-end-of-the-world-the-now-and-not-yet-of-eschatology
It took me back to a book which is a double distillation of Beale’s commentary. The City of God, New Jerusalem, is the people of our Triune God, with God in their midst.
The book more than supports this article, generally and with the whole sweep of the scriptures from Genesis onwards, citing the particular scriptures as does Ian, drawing together the same conclusions.
Many specific citations from the book could be given to corroborate.
From years ago, a school teacher I knew quoted this: “I am the place, the place is not me.” Seems an apt summary, of God and his people.
This article also shed s light on the earlier one on Psalm 121, bringing it to the ultimate conclusion.
So is the contention by this thought that Jesus lied when he said I go to prepare a place for you?
Um, I don’t think using metaphors is usually construed as ‘lying’.
In John 14, the ‘place’ that he is preparing is himself; in the next chapter he says ‘Dwell in me, and I in you.’ The word he uses, ‘meno’, was used at the beginning of the gospel when the two disciples say to him ‘Where do you live?’
I read your comments on that but Im not convinced. I dont see why Jesus’ death and resurrection = his going and returning. It could just as easily be his ascension to heaven/right hand of the Father and his future return/or welcoming his disciples upon their death (I understand the view by some that physical death means death of the spirit too & then resurrection, but Im not persuaded by that either). Just because the same Greek word is used re ‘room’ doesnt automatically mean Jesus is referring to the same thing. Your understanding also doesnt seem to fit with the natural meaning of Jesus’ words – he is going away but will come back and take the disciples away with him to the place in which he will have prepared a ‘room’. Logically your view means the disciples are leaving with Jesus only to return to themselves! Id rather have a holiday away from myself, thanks.
But this reminds me of my old minister jokingly complaining that even God is downsizing – it used to be many mansions, now it’s just a room!
You have to read John 14 in context. Throughout his gospel, John equates God’s House with the Temple, not heaven. In the beginning, the Word comes to tabernacle among us. In the OT the tabernacles was the place where the glory of God dwelt. Now John is saying that Jesus is that tabernacle. Later, Jesus meets Nathaniel and says, “Here is a true Israelite in whom there is no deceit…you shall see heaven open and the angels ascending and descending on the Son of Man. This reminds us of Jacob, the deceiver, seeing a ladder to heaven. After God speaks to him, he says, this is none other than the House of God, the Gate of Heaven. He names the place Bethel, the House of God, and God gives Jacob the name Israel. Jesus is telling Nathaniel that He is the House of God, and the Gate of Heaven, upon whom angels will ascend and descend. And again, later, Jesus goes to the Temple and drives out the money changers, telling them that they have made the Father’s House into a den of thieves. They ask Him by what authority He does these things and He tells them, “Destroy this Temple and I will raise it up on the third day.” He was talking about His body.
What Jesus is doing in John 14 is telling His disciples that He was going away to prepare His Body, so that they themselves could be dwelling places, Living Stones within His Body, the Temple. And the return Jesus was talking about was through the Spirit. “I will not leave you comfortless. I will come to you.” And He tells them, when this happens, which will be “in a little while,” they would know that they were in the Father and He and the Father were in them. So you think that Christ is us, the hope of glory is a “downsizing” from a mansion in heaven? You said, ” Logically your view means the disciples are leaving with Jesus only to return to themselves! Id rather have a holiday away from myself, thanks.” No, they are NOT leaving with Jesus. Jesus is leaving, going to the cross, dying, rising and ascending to the Father, a place where the disciple could not come. And being in Christ IS a vacation away from ourselves. In fact, it is a DYING to ourselves. We have been crucified with Christ and no longer live, but He lives in us. He is our Life, we have died and our life is now hid with Christ in God. Do you not understand what it means to be in Christ and what it means to have Christ in us? Through Jesus’ death and resurrection, ascension and return by the Spirit, Jesus made a way to the Father. He IS the way. Jesus was in the Father and the Father was in Him, and by receiving the disciples to Himself, making them part of His Body, they could also be in the Father and the Father in them. This is not second coming language. This is new birth language. We are in Him and He is in us. The Spirit of Christ dwells in us and we are raised up and seated in heavenly places in Him. And those who have seen Jesus, have also seen the Father.
As for the word mansion, it is derived from the Latin “mansio,” which simply means “dwelling.” The Church IS that dwelling, God’s House.
Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. But in a great HOUSE there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour
But Christ as a son over his own HOUSE; WHOSE HOUSE WE ARE, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual HOUSE, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
We are built up as a holy Temple in the Lord, “In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”
Scripture is pretty clear that the Temple of Christ’s Body, the Church is now the House of God, that we are both corporately and individually, a dwelling place where God lives by the Spirit. Jesus is not presently building mansions in heaven. He is building His Church on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, He Himself being the Chief Cornerstone. It is a spiritual House, not made with hands.
“In my Father’s House are many mansions?”
The word used here is monai, meaning ‘dwelling places’, which is related to the verb used all through the gospels, meno, translated in the second half of the gospel as ‘abide’.
Jesus invites his followers to ‘abide’ in him, and assures them that there are many places to abide. He has claimed in John 2 that he is the temple, which is ‘his Father’s house’. So Jesus is not here talking about post-mortem destiny, but his going to the cross to enable the disciples to abide in him.
It does not surprise me that despite all your work on Revelation you can still be struck by a new perspective. It is five years now since I completed my PhD on the Bible’s marital imagery and I have continued to work on it since. And I still find new aspects – it seems we will never exhaust the depths of the Bible’s riches – particularly as we explore its metaphoric concepts.
Surely, the ‘New Jerusalem’ could be both ‘place’ and ‘people’ because of the rich imagery found throughout Revelation? (And one could probably say the same throughout the Bible.)
One question – what do you mean by the ‘New Jerusalem’ being a cube? I am not sure where that idea is in Revelation. Thanks.
It’s 1500×15001500 miles in its dimensions, hence cube-like. Another reason not to understand Revelation literally.
Reminds me of the cube u line the colors up with like a puzzle I can’t remember what they’re called I just remember it’s a cube
I enjoyed your essay! I’m going to have to pick up your commentary. I did read in a bit of a hurry, so I may have missed it but I’m surprised you didn’t note the parallels with the Old Testament Temple; it was overlaid with gold inside and out, the shape of the holy of holy‘s was a cube, the presence of God was there, its design was in heaven but it was located on Earth and it seems there are one or two more but I forget at the moment.
Anyway thanks for posting!
Yes, I point out the temple parallels in the commentary. There is no doubt that the New Jerusalem is depicted as a giant Holy of Holies.
Hey, I really enjoyed this. I was taught that Revelation wasn’t to be taken literally and this makes a lot of sense. I appreciate your scholarship as well, as that’s very helpful for me to understand the case you’re making.
The strange thing for me is that years ago I came across Emanuel Swedenborg’s interpretation of Revelation, and there’s a lot of agreement between yours and his, but most people haven’t even heard of Swedenborg. Anyway, you might want to check him out for your own interest.
Thanks–I am glad that you enjoyed it. I confess, though, to be slightly nervous at the comparison with a heretical mystic…!
I studied a book once called, “God’s New Testament Economy” where the final 18 chapters (or the final 180 pages or so) were devoted to the unpacking of the “New Jerusalem” seen in Revelation 21 and 22. All of the interpretation was from the perspective of the New Jerusalem not being a city, a place, but being God’s people as the ultimate consummation of all that God is after in the Bible. Taking the same approach you took in your article. It was really amazing seeing the New Jerusalem from that perspective! The author then came out with another book (as if there was more to cover haha) where he built off of those similar themes — “The Application of the Interpretation of the New Jerusalem for Seeking Believers” — the book seemingly was designed in a way to give us believers a way to “live” in the New Jerusalem today as a foretaste of what’s to come. Really interesting stuff.
Opinions on the author — Witness Lee — vary greatly. Mainly due to his pretty radical stance on the church and his non-traditional Christian upbringing (Taiwanese background). But I thought his view on the New Jerusalem was interesting and his teaching on the subject was some of the most exhaustive I have ever come across in regards to the people vs. place discussion. I find it very healthy for the church (and my understanding) that there is more literature coming out and being discussed regarding this interpretation.
I very much enjoyed your writing, Mr. Paul!
Thanks for the link—how interesting!
I confess, I agonise a bit over the metaphor of Jerusalem. Firstly because in one sense it is more than a metaphor. Like land, sacrifice, temple, etc it was concrete and points to something concrete. I recognise the eschatological eclipses the temporal but there is nevertheless a correspondence between them.
My reading just now is in Isaiah and having reached 54 and the desolate Jerusalem soon (by the victory of the servant) to be teeming with people. I can see the city is idealised and so eschatological. Paul of course identifies it with the Jerusalem above.
I recognise that at some points Jerusalem acts as a metaphor for the people, however, it also seems to be more than the people. It carries the freight a city carries, particularly a holy city. The immediate presence of God, society, safety, home, rest, joy etc… and ones you mention… not simply a people who are blessed but a sphere, a place, of blessing… like the land, like a new heavens and new earth.
Jerusalem above… is a concept but is it not also more than a concept. It has some kind of reality (presumably not material but something more than an idea). It is ‘above’ and the ‘mother of us all’ so it is not precisely identified with the people on earth… or am I asking too much of the image? You can see how I struggle with a) understanding the metaphor b) avoiding reducing it to mere metaphor
I’m inclined to see the Father’s house in Jn 14 as an allusion to the heavenly temple.
You are the only online article I can see that addresses the people.. place question so thanks for that.
On an aside. Most people outside Dispensationalism that I’m aware of seem to take the 3 and a half years symbolically. I understand that in Revelation numbers are often symbolic. One reason I struggle with this is that if they are taken from Daniel’s seventieth week then that period seems to be literal years even if precise dates are difficult to set. I know many see them as symbolic but the time up until the anointed one is cut off seem like real years of one kind or another. You may have posted on this. If not it may be a topic for the future.
I’m back again for once again the question of metaphor comes up in my mind and yours is the first place I see when I do a search.
I can see clearly that some language is metaphorical. I think my biggest difficulty is knowing what kind of category to use for land, temple city etc. I can see that there is fluidity… the temple is perhaps creation…then a physical building… then a person (Christ)…then a people (the church) then a temple-city. In all the characteristic is God’s dwelling place and generally among his people…. yet of course the heaven of heavens can’t contain him.
I wonder if you have any thoughts that might help. Yet I realise you are a busy man and cant respond to every query. So no obligation.
Yet another comment on this issue. It continues to intrigue me because I have been looking at the new Jerusalem in Revelation and the eschatological Jerusalem in Isaiah. In reading Isaiah I have been dipping into Andrew Abernethy’s
book on Isaiah and the Kingdom of God. He writhttps://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/is-the-new-jerusalem-a-place-or-a-people/es: Yahweh’s presence as king has been inextricably tied to Zion. Yes, Zion is a symbol, even of the entire cosmos, but Zion is also an actual place in the ‘theo-topological’ outlook of Israel. It is a geographical reference point that is to orient the entire world around God’s kingship. Or, as Levenson puts it in his discussion of Zion, ‘geography is simply a visible form of theology’. In Isaiah the realm of God’s kingdom is universal, but the universal, cosmic scope of God’s kingdom has a centre point in Zion.
The ‘geography as a visible form of theology’ seems worth thinking about.
These are the people God sends down to help with the building completions
That’s a nice idea! It appears though in the text that the city is a gift from God.
“Thou hast been our dwelling place throughout all generations” refers to God as our dwelling place. Elsewhere,”The Lord thy maker is thine husband”. Two things: God as a place refering to the figure of the true; God, a being/ “person,” the true;
This, we can apply to the New Jerusalem. Truly, it is a bride, and the husband is a bridegroom.
Yes–interesting to see that the dynamic of place and relationship are combined in other places in scripture. Having said that, I am not sure we ever think that ‘God is a dwelling place’ is a geographical reference, and I am increasingly reluctant to think of the New Jerusalem in this way for the same reasons.
[ Hebrews 12:22-27 ]
But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
The above passage tells us that the Christians long ago had come to the “heavenly Jerusalem”, not will come to it. This presents significant implications, one of which is that the heavenly Jerusalem does not present itself to the world until after the new heavens and the new earth, which means the dominant perspective on the matter (namely that we are still waiting for the new heavens and the new earth) is incorrect.
[ Revelation 3:11-12 ]
Behold, I am coming quickly! Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown. He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.
Notice in the above passage that Jesus writes the phrase (among other words) “New Jerusalem” on those in the Ekklesia who overcome. So, this is yet another indication that Jesus identifies the Believers as the New Jerusalem.
Eh Yehash[t]er Eh Yeh
The Mount of Olives is Kaliph-ornia, split by the great valley, with the New Jeurusalem over 12,000 measures x 12,000 meters San Francisco west of it, near the Horeb Rock of the Mount Sinai, now known as Moses Rock [Springs] in Diablo range, from which water springs to this day, and, another geo marker, the Fiery [Burning] Bush, endemic Manzanita in Serpentinite, and, Bereshit (Brieždit) means At Dawn [during Night!] in Scythican, Nahash means Serpenter, cunningly written as Carpenter through Latin, in original Hebrew, Naha, from Scythican NoHa, means Serpent, Satan means Chestnut [adversary is an attribute, not the meaning of the Word!], God [Scythican Had] means Snake (both mud-bound or/and elevated Serpent) … according to 23 “Carpenttarius” (Carpenter/Serpenter) related posts.
It sounds as though for you [anything] means [anything else]! So that would mean Scripture means whatever we want it to mean…
Dear brother in the Lord Jesus, I came across your article this morning because the Holy Spirit was teaching me about New Jerusalem in a dream last night, 2/12/23.
I am being led to study the book of Revelation but the Spirit of Jesus had me to begin with the end of the book, 21 & 22, on Thursday, 2/9/23. I read the text with no presuppositions and waited on the Lord.
Then He opened my understanding while I was sleeping on 2/12/23.
I simply want to express what I heard the Spirit say,
…The characteristics of New Jerusalem in Revelation 21 are to also to be understood as the characteristics of His people. For example beginning with the WORD Holy, New, and coming DOWN (all from 21:2) relates to what Jesus said about being born again when He spoke with our beloved brother Nicodemus and our beloved sister at the WELL (Gospel of John).
The description of the GATES being made out of PEARLS and memorialized with the NAMES of the TRIBES of ISRAEL relates to what the written WORD of TRUTH says about through much suffering one enters the Kingdom (Acts).
The FOUNDATION of the WALL memorialized with the names of the APOSTLES of the Lamb relates to the Apostolic teaching and that we are spiritual stones being built into spiritual house (1Peter).
Inside the city the river of life flowing from God is related to the baptism of the Holy Spirit and Him flowing inside His people.
The tree of life producing its fruit monthly connects to (Psalm 1) and relates to His people producing the Fruit of the Holy Spirit.
The leaves I heard something but my sleep was interrupted by my 8 year old daughter.
The streets of pure gold is about the walk of His people being PURGED through Fire.
At the end of my dream I didn’t come away with that New Jerusalem wasn’t a tangible place BUT RATHER just as the PLACE is so shall His PEOPLE be. I know there is so much more to LEARN. This was just the beginning for me. I wait eagerly for the One who comes in the VOLUME of the BOOK to teach, lead, guide and direct me.
This may not add anything to anyone BUT I simply want to share in the community of brotherhood.
Your sister in the Lord Jesus. Thank you for taking the time to read and may our Lord Jesus who is able to do exceedingly abundant above all we can ask or think bless you all richly with His Grace, Peace, and Love. To Him be the glory, honor, praise, dominion now & forever. Amen
“It is done” Revelation 21:6