June 10 Matthew 6 "For Thine is the Kingdom"
This theme fits well into our annual theme of "From the Garden to the City - Trees along the Way." The "city" represents the kingdom of God in its fullness. Close to the beginning of the prayer we pray "Your Kingdom Come," now at the end of the prayer, we are once again reminded that the Kingdom, power and Glory all belong to Him. This is a prayer with a profound kingdom focus at both the beginning and the end. In this sermon, I hope to talk about a healthy desire for the kingdom - as represented in the New Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the desire of Israel in the Old Testament. It was the place where their king had his throne. It was the place where God sat enthroned on the Ark of the Covenant. It was placed on a high hill, and so Israel would sing its songs of ascent and longing on their way up to Jerusalem. When Jerusalem was taken and pillaged by the Assyrians, the people of Israel sat at the river side and wept. To have ones name in the citizenship scrolls of Jerusalem was to have your name remembered eternally as a possessor of the promised land. Thus Israel kept long geneological records that incidentally were destroyed in 70AD. Now the book of Hebrews tells us that our citizenship is in heaven, the new Jerusalem, our names written in the book of life. And this city will never be taken. We are secure in the city where there will be no more crying, tears, or pain. Don't you find yourself hungry for that at times? Maybe more often than not? Yet its seems that we are reluctant to talk about what heaven is like. Maybe that's because, when push comes to shove, we are often reluctant to talk about "the kingdom" because we are not quite sure what it should really look like. To say that the Kingdom is wherever "Jesus is Lord" is theologically true but painting a picture of that is sometimes less than clear. Should the church be giving courses in how to become poor (Matthew 5:3)? Or "The five easy steps to hungering and thirsting for righteousness" (Matthew 5:10)? Or "The two best strategies to fall off the social ladder and become the least" (Matthew 5:19)? Or "The eighteen mysterious secrets of the kingdom" (Matthew 13:11)? Kingdom and the New Jerusalem are concepts that intermingle. Are we people who seek first the kingdom (the New Jerusalem) and its righteousness? How hungry are we?
If you are really brave, you might want to check out my research on the city of Jerusalem... in the third comment below.
What do you think the "markers" of the kingdom are? What would church look like if the kingdom of God came to a more perfect expression among us? Your ideas or input on this sermon or future sermons is deeply appreciated.
"True godliness is always a matter of desire." and "desires are true prayers." Charles Spurgeon (http://sovereign-grace.com/spurgeon-sn/chsn0034.htm)
On Knowledge and Desire according to Augustine see http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3664/is_200110/ai_n8958098/pg_6
"“Desires for other things”—there’s the enemy. And the only
weapon that will triumph is a deeper hunger for God. The weakness
of our hunger for God is not because he is unsavory, but
because we keep ourselves stuffed with “other things.”" - John Piper Hunger for God p. 10
"The fight of faith is a fight to feast on all that
God is for us in Christ. What we hunger for most, we worship." - John Piper Hunger for God p. 10
Whom have I in heaven but thee?
And there is nothing upon earth
that I desire besides thee.
My flesh and my heart may fail,
but God is the strength of my heart
and my portion for ever.
—PS A L M 7 3 : 2 5 - 2 6 , R S V
"Christian fasting, at its root, is the hunger of a homesickness for
God." - John Piper Hunger for God p. 14
"The greatest enemy of hunger for God is not poison but apple pie.
It is not the banquet of the wicked that dulls our appetite for
heaven, but endless nibbling at the table of the world. It is not
the X-rated video, but the prime-time dribble of triviality we
drink in every night. For all the ill that Satan can do, when God
describes what keeps us from the banquet table of his love, it is
a piece of land, a yoke of oxen, and a wife (Luke 14:18-20). The
greatest adversary of love to God is not his enemies but his gifts.
And the most deadly appetites are not for the poison of evil, but
for the simple pleasures of earth. For when these replace an
appetite for God himself, the idolatry is scarcely recognizable,
and almost incurable." - John Piper Hunger for God p. 14
John Piper is an excellent writer and a great theologian - and guess what - he is offering his books on the internet to readers for FREE! Future Grace is a great book, a good read. Check his books out @ http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/OnlineBooks/ByTitle/
5 comments:
Everytime I hear the word "kingdom" my thoughts go to St. Matthew's gospel. Good news full of parables, stories told by Jesus that are more about the kingdom of God than about Jesus Himself. If anything, the miracles, healings and teachings St. Matthew records for us are direction signs towards the arrival of God's kingdom.
Interestingly, Jesus never seems to define the Kingdom, He just tells stories and paints pictures of the Kingdom.
Jesus paints a picture full of tension: present vs. future, here-and-now vs. not-yet-complete, evident (visible) vs. hidden.
Some of the markers he paints are the following: fellowship with sinners, helping the poor, needy, oppressed, widows, children, prisoners, us. Loving us as family because we are family.
The beatitudes also show us many of the markers. But when we read them closely, we discover that the markers are "upside-down" if you like. Love your enemies, blessed are the poor, calling names equals murder etc. This is a kingdom unlike anything that was modeled to us by way of earthly kings. This is a subversive kingdom.
'For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever' is a most wonderful concluding doxology to the Lord's prayer. After this you can't help but exclaim "Amen!".
But apart from doxology, it kind of wraps up the message of the whole prayer: God's kingdom, God's power and God's glory is what it's all about.
It proclaims confidence, assurance, boldness, rest but also evokes commitment. We pray in the name of the King of kings. For all we ask God to do He can do.
Darrell W. Johnson paraphrases these final words of the Lord's prayer as follows in his boo "Fifty-seven Words that changes the World":
"For the kingdom is yours: you are sovereign over all, always have been, always will be. You can do whatever you choose to do, You can do it for the power is yours: all power, power to do whatever you choose to do. You made the world out of nothing (garden); you raised Jesus from the dead. You have the power to fulfill your will, to provide us all we need, and overcome the evil-one. And you can do it for yours is the glory. Glory stands for all that makes you be you, all that makes you the Sovereign, powerful God you are. Infinite resources are yours. You can do all and more than we can ever dare to imagine! only you, Father, can do all this. And you have what it takes to do what only you can do. Forever!
And all God's people said: Amen, so be it.
Charles Wesley catches the mood of this final ending of the Lord's prayer when he wrote the following in vs. 4 of the hymn "Lo, He Comes with Clouds Descending" (which is actually and Advent hymn):
Yea, Amen! Let all adore thee,
High on Thine eternal throne;
Saviour, take the power and glory:
Claim the Kingdom for thine own:
Alleluia!
Thou shalt reign, and thou alone.
Amen.
Of course before Wesley king David wrote a similar doxology at the end his prayer when Solomon was crowned in 1 Chr 29:11
Wonderful how in Jesus this prayer has been fulfilled.
JERUSALEM
Focus of Desire
A Study of the New Jerusalem
in Dispensational and Reformed Theologies.
Copyright: Bill Versteeg
Jerusalem, Oh, Jerusalem!
The City David danced in. The City Israel wept for. The City crushed again and again. The City that the Christ entered as a weeping King. The City still today a focus of three different religions. The City, regarded by some as the thermometer’ of Christ’s return. The City for the saints, the focus of desire.
Jerusalem is a central concept in scripture, especially for the foci of eschatological theocracy and the eschatological local of soteriology. Different eschatological perspectives will view the significance of Jerusalem differently since it plays such an important role in eschatology. The intent of this paper is, first to study to biblical significance of the city of Jerusalem, (from a Reformed perspective) and then to compare and contrast the Reformed position with other eschatological understandings of Jerusalem, especially the Dispensational - Pre Millenarian perspective.
An understanding of the significance of the City of Jerusalem in both its real and symbolic meanings requires first of all an understanding of its significance in the Old Testament. Once that is understood, then the continuity in meaning will be recognized and the imagery of Revelation 21-22:5 will come alive with eschatological and soteriological significance.
I The Old Testament Significance of Jerusalem
The Old Testament understanding of the role of Jerusalem in Israel’s relation to their Lord is important to the understanding of the New Jerusalem also. Fohrer and Lohse write an excellent article on the significance of the Jerusalem concept in TDNT, Vol. VII’pp. 292-339
B. Jerusalem did not attain its significance from its geographic position or topography. Its history is the cause of its significance. One such important historical aspect was that it was captured by David and his men and as such became an independent Royal city — state which effectively consolidated Israel and Judah. The second major historical event was the moving of the Ark from Shiloh to Jerusalem (II Sam 6). In this act, Jerusalem came to be regarded as the place where Jahweh dwells. A following consequence was the construction of the Jerusalem temple by Solomon which resulted in the establishment of the cultic focus of the entire nation in the city of Jerusalem. God is said to ‘dwell’ in Zion! (I Kings 8:l2ff.) After the Kingdom divides, the importance of Jerusalem seems to decrease politically but its spiritual significance remains. When Israel is sent into exile, their spiritual yearnings for the promise land are voiced in terms of fervent longings for Jerusalem (Ps. 137). Jerusalem from then on functions as a symbol of realized salvation for all who truly belong to Israel.
C. From historical data and lingual associations, TDNT recognizes the following aspects and meaning to the terms Zion and Jerusalem (p. 307ff ad bc).
1. Jerusalem is the Royal Residence and Capital of David. This political focus relates it to the ruling house over the ‘two houses of Israel’(Is. 8:14) but more specifically to Judah (Jerusalem and all its cities [Jer. 34:11).
2. Jerusalem comes to be blended with and identified with Israel’s faith in Yahweh, in what TDNT calls a “court - sacral theology.” Essential to this point is that the royal and priestly functions are combine in one royal figure, similar to the Melchizedek tradition (this follows consistently if Ps 110:4 is not taken to be ‘directly Messianic’). Another important support for this correlation is the fact that Jerusalem is Yahweh’s chosen city where he chooses to dwell (Ps 132). The blessings of his presence are a resultant expectation.
3. Jerusalem also functioned as a symbol of the People or community that God has chosen (Ps 79:1). As a result, Jerusalem may be personified so that it may be said that it speaks (Mi. 7:8—20), ‘suffers’ (Is. 51:17—23), or is delivered (Is. 46:13). It symbolizes more than just its inhabitants, it also symbolizes those people in general who are God’s chosen community. In Is. 40:lff., “my people” refers to God’s total “community in all places and times so they are called after the city (Is 48:2) and Zion can receive the designation of “my people” (Is 51:6) [TDNT, p. 309 ad loc]. Jerusalem is a symbol for Israel.
Even more significant is that membership within this community, even though it might be ‘alien’ membership, involves the benefits of full salvation. Isaiah 56:1-8 clearly brings out that those who identify themselves with the God’s community can in a full way participate in the benefits of being a member of the city of Jerusalem. Thus God’s temple becomes a house of prayer for all the nations! (vs. 5).
4 Jerusalem must be seen as the “Seat and City of God, the Cultic Center and Temple City.” The temple as well as the city is the focal point of God’s presence in the world (Ps 43:3). “The Jerusalem temple, Mount Zion and Jerusalem are not merely the only legitimate cultic center; they are also signs of the revelatory presence of God.” (TDNT, p. 310). The expansion of the loci of God’s presence from ark to temple to temple hill and then the whole city is supported by Ps. 15:1 and Is. 31:4—5, Joel 2:1. Thus the whole city is revelatory of God’s presence. It can enjoy and expect his care, blessing and protection.
5. Jerusalem is also seen as a city of Sin and Judgment! One of the main messages of the prophets is that Jerusalem will sustain intense judgment for its apostasy and rebellion from God (Is. 3:8,l6ff; 22:1—14, 28:14), for which it is compared to a harlot. It is not only apostate, it is also involved in ethical - social sins (Micah) and political sins (Ezekiel 16:23—25 etc.) Jerusalem is pictured as the epitome of covenantal unfaithfulness, and its judgment will compare to the crime.
6. The focus of judgment does not obliterate the strong note of eschatological hope in the Old Testament. Jerusalem comes to symbolize this eschatological hope. The Lord does not forget Zion as a mother is unable to forget her child (Is. 49:l4ff). Isaiah 60ff portrays a future hope for Jerusalem that is brighter than any of its past. The glory of the LORD will shine forth from her as light (60:lff). From his hill God will establish salvation and inaugurate his royal eschatological rule. The possessions and wealth of all the nations will stream unceasingly into Jerusalem (Is. 60:5-il). This eschatoiogical Jerusalem will have a new name. Isaiah writes: (62:3-5)
“You will be a crown of splendor in the LORD’s hand a royal diadem in the hand of your God.
“No longer will they call you Deserted,
or name your land Desolate.
But you will be called Hephzibah (my delight is in her)
and your Beulah (married)
for the LORD will take delight in you,
and your land will be married.
As a young man marries a maiden,
so will your Builder (sons) marry you.
As a bridegroom rejoices over his bride,
so will God rejoice over you.”
The intense love bond between God’s people and himself is pictured clearly in Isaiah’s prophecy concerning the eschatological Jerusalem. Though the term ‘New Jerusalem’ is not used in the Old Testament, the thought is definitely there in earthy symbology. The city and its people are regarded as the Builder’s bride, a picture that the New Testament picks up for the church. This city, like the Church exists solely on the basis of the “forgiveness and the grace of God, who blots out the blood- guiltiness of Jerusalem that Ezekiel had censured and washes away the filth of its sin (Is 4:4).” (TDNT, p. 315) “The goal of the return to Jerusalem is the setting up of a true and perpetual covenant relationship (Jer 50:5) in faithfulness and righteousness which God imparts to His people in order that they may cleave to His fellowship (Zech. 8:8). There is thus the birth of a new people in Zion (Is 66:8) which is upright and loyal.” (TDNT, p. 316) The eschatological Jerusalem also envelopes the nations who stream to it for salvation (Jer. 3:17).
Clearly, this eschatological vision forms the background for the concept of the new or heavenly Jerusalem in the New Testament. The continuity between the New Jerusalem and the Old Testament concept makes it very rich.
7. Fohrer also argues that certain Canaanite mythical motifs were attributed to the concept of Jerusalem. Whether they are of Canaanite origin is open to question, but the motifs are definitely attributed to Jerusalem. The motif that Jerusalem is on the ‘highest mountain’ is well supported in the Old Testament. The most obvious symbolism is that it is the Mount that is unsurpassable in grandeur. The motif of healing rivers flowing from the temple ( Jerusalem) is also strong in the Old Testament. From the temple flows forth a stream of water of life and blessing (Ez. 47:1—12, Joel 3:18, Zech. 14:8, Ps 46:4). Fohrer argues, based on Canaanite mythology, that these two images combined create a Paradise motif, where the eschatological Jerusalem is regarded as the realization of creational paradise (p. 317 ad loc). The New Testament also regards the New Jerusalem as the new paradise where God dwells with men.
8. Last, but not least, the idea that Jerusalem was a city of Theocracy remains fundamental to the concept. Jerusalem was the seat or throne of God, the place where he ruled alone through the Davidic dynasty. Jerusalem remained God’s own chosen city.
The intertestamentary period shows definite continuity with Old Testament expectations and motifs. Even though the Davidic monarchy no longer existed, the city itself remained and because of the Chronicler’s post exilic theological basis for the primacy of Jerusalem, few Jews did not recognize it as the center of worship. Even though Herod enlarged much of the temple in 20 BC, the Jews still recognized that his very ruler ship over them was a sign that the eschatological Jerusalem had not come. Yet Jerusalem remained the cultic focus of the nation. This centrality went so far as to consider Jerusalem as the very center or naval of the earth (Jub. 8:l9). There are also references in this period which refer to Jerusalem as the hieropolis and the maetropolis!
Expectations and speculations concerning the ‘New Jerusalem’ were quite common, especially in the Qumran community. Two theories about the New Jerusalem seem to have existed. “On the one hand Jerusalem at the end of the days is the city of David built again with glory and magnificence. On the other the new Jerusalem is thought of as a pre-existent city which is built by God in heaven and which comes down to earth with the dawn of a new world.”(TDNT, p. 324). Interestingly, the Qumran community in its speculations about the new city expected that a new temple would be built in which the faithful (Qumran) priests would work in the temple. This contrasts with John’s vision of the New Jerusalem in which there is no temple. Tobith l3:l7ff provides a vision of the new city to be built. The magnificent city when completed will encompass “the whole people of Israel and the fullness of Gentiles who stream into it, it will at God’s command extend so far that there is room for all.”(TDNT, p. 326). Many of the old utensils, from the original temple, including the ark will be returned to it, symbolizing its continuity with the old and the presence of the Lord in the temple. Jerusalem will then be the center of realized salvation for the nations, it will be paradise once again.
II. The New Testament significance of Jerusalem. As in the Old Testament, the New Testament sees
Jerusalem as a central focus of desire for the community of the faithful. During the life of Christ, Jerusalem was still regarded as the main cultic center. In the gospels, many of Christ’s actions and a few of his sayings concern the action actual city of Jerusalem. In Math. 5:35, Christ regards an oath invoked in the name of Jerusalem as equivalent to an oath invoked in the name of the LORD. Jerusalem is also the place where the prophets are martyred for their witness (Mt. 23:37-39, Lk. 13:33-34). Thus Jesus, The PROPHET suffers martyrdom for His witness against a rebellious nation by being condemned by the chief priests and scribes of Jerusalem. Mark essentially pictures Jerusalem as the “dwelling — place of the enemies who exert themselves to bring Jesus to the cross.” (TDNT, p. 330 ad loc).
In Matthew, Jerusalem functions centrally as the place where the events of salvation take place. The nations (magi) come to Jerusalem to find the newborn King. Here, Jesus confronts the leaders of Judaism in a decisive debate (23) and it is in the city of Jerusalem that the Son of Man must be put to death. The consequences of his death are revealed in Jerusalem by the resurrection of many saints, their appearance in Jerusalem, and the ripping of the temple veil. To Jerusalem has come not only a day of judgment (23:38) but a day of eschatological salvation (23:39). In Luke, Jerusalem functions as the place where the true Israel is focused. Such faithful Israelites as Zacharias, Simeon and Anna wait for the day of the Lord’s salvation for Jerusalem. Jerusalem functions as the focus of Christ’s passion. Because Jerusalem does not recognize the true significance of their King in his triumphal entry, it will be destroyed (19:36ff). But Luke ends his gospel with the blessed faithful worshipping and praising God at the Jerusalem temple! Acts is a continuation of Luke. Once again, in Jerusalem, where the church (the true Israel) is assembled, God sends his spirit at Pentecost. From this event, the universalization of the true Israel begins to spread, from Jerusalem, to Judea, to Samaria and to all the ends of the earth. Paul to recognizes that the Church arose in Jerusalem and thus he regards the Jerusalem church as special and honored. Yet he denies that his ultimate authority comes from the Jerusalem church.
In the gospel of John, Jerusalem is the places where Jesus repeatedly manifests His glory (John 4:45). Christ’s passion occurs in Jerusalem, but in the bulk of the narrative, especially the Last Supper Discourses, Jerusalem does not function significantly. In the book of John, Jesus points out to the Samaritan woman that the city of Jerusalem (or any other ‘mountain’) will no longer be the cultic center for worship. Rather true believers must worship in spirit and in truth (4:20f).
III. The New Jerusalem
The New Jerusalem functions as the fulfillment of all the eschatological hopes for the concept ‘Jerusalem’ because the earthly Jerusalem has become subject to destruction. The shift of reference, from the city of Jerusalem to the church to the New Jerusalem can be seen in Gal. 4:26, Heb. 12:22 (11:10—16, 13:14), Rev. 3:12 and 21—22:5.
A. Galatians 4:21-31 is an allegory concerning Hagar and Sarah. One of the major themes of the book of Galatians is that there are two covenants, one which leads to slavery and the other leading to freedom, in Christ, from the Law. Hagar represents the covenant (diathaekae) which was established at Sinai. This is the covenant of Law which leads to slavery of attempting to attain righteousness by the legalistic demands of that law (Ladd, The Theology of the New Testament, pp. 495-511). This enslaving covenant Paul equates with the city of Jerusalem. Thus the now (nun Ierousalaem) Jerusalem becomes symbolic, not so much of its inhabitants as much as a whole way of being related or oriented to God. This ‘now’ Jerusalem spawns children that are slaves, just as Hagar did. They are children of nature, achieving only what nature (as opposed to promise) can achieve — slavery.
Paul contrasts the ‘now’ or earthly Jerusalem to the ‘Jerusalem that is above’ (anw Ierousalaem). The ‘above’ Jerusalem is the mother, like Sarah, who brings forth children that are free because they are children of promise as Isaac was a child of promise. Paul draws the analogy with Gen. 17:16 - 18:10 still further. Ishmael mocked the child of promise (Gen 21:9). In response, Sarah demanded that Hagar and Ishmael be removed from Abraham’s family community. The reason — “that slave women’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”(vs. 10) To Paul the analogy is clear. As the natural — born son mocked the son born of promise, so now, those who attempt salvation by works persecute those who are born of the promised Spirit. As Ishmael and Hagar where removed from the inheritance, so to, those who live by the Law are also not part of that family which can expect the inheritance. Paul’s essential argument is that the Christian’s are children of this free woman, SaraI3’thus they are the family that identifies with Abraham and they can fully expect the inheritance to come (in broad categories - the salvation of the Kingdom of God, cnf. Rev. 21:7).
The quote that Paul in verse 27 uses comes from Isaiah 54:1 (LXX). In its context, it is a prophesy concerning Zion’s restoration and magnitude after captivity Ridderbos, H. N. The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Pub. co., 1979), p. 179.) The key to the fact of the barren woman’s rejoicing is because God, by his Word has provided her with life, freedom and eternal redemption because her Maker has become her Husband (Isaiah 54:5). Thus Zion is the mother of this redeemed community. Old Testament phrases such as ‘sons and daughters of Zion’ reflect this mother - image and it denotes identity with the community of Zion. For those who call the new Jerusalem ‘mother’ they know that they have their citizenship in heaven (Phil. 3:20).
Paul then encourages those who identify with this new Jerusalem to live out a life which reflects the nature of their birth - as free children, no longer slaves to the Law.
The Gal 4:21—31 passage is avoided, abused or massacred by dispensational pre-mil exegetes. At the basis of this abuse is the fundamental distinction between Israel and the Church. The Covenant promises were for Israel and not for the Church, thus “the church is not now fulfilling Israel’s new covenant.”
J. D. Pentecost makes this assertion because he believes that “the term Israel is nowhere used in Scriptures for any but the physical descendents of Abraham.” This assertion is extremely difficult to support in the light of Gal. 6:16 where the kai is best taken as epexegetical (cmp. NIV). He secondly argues that this is obvious because some of the Old Testament promises to Israel have not been given to the church, ie. inheritance in a land, material blessings on earth and rest from oppression. His objections, similar to Van Rulers have some serious downfalls. First, it denies the biblical realit7 of the already and not yet. The picture of scripture points the Christian to a coming paradise of which we are citizens, in which we will receive these blessings of land, blessings and eternal rest. Jesus Christ’s Sermon on the Mount clearly shows that these blessings are for those who follow Him. Jesus Christ, the New Israel (Matthean theology) tells his followers to “come after me... I will give you rest” (11:28-30) and “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth” (5:5).
Pentecost then has the courage to use Gal 4:22-31 to support the following statement!
Since the church receives blessings of the Abrahamic covenant (Gal 3:14; 4:22-31) by faith without being under or fulfilling that covenant, so the church may receive blessings from the new covenant without being under or fulfilling that new covenant.
Besides the fact that the statement is disturbingly ambiguous, it fails to recognize the essential continuity between the Abrahamic covenant and the New Covenant (Hebrews 11) through Sarah (Gal. 4:21-31). It also fails to recognize that the Christian meets the requirements of the Abrahamic covenant in Jesus Christ (Col 2:11)! The seven dispensation perspective has resulted in a necessary editing and mis-interpretation of this part of scripture.
Our tangent focusing on dispensational abuses of this passage must now be left for a Reformed interpretation of another passage.
B. Hebrews 12:22-24 points to the church and
argues that it is the community of people that is going to that perfect community which has been established by the perfect
priest who performed the ultimate sacrifice - namely Christ. He says this is the context of the ‘pilgrimage of faith’ passages.
1. The clearest reference to the New Jerusalem in the pilgrimage of faith context is in Hebrews 11:10-
16. Apollos (the probable author) says of Abraham and Sarah, and the other ‘exemplars’ of faith, that a main motivator behind their actions, a main aspect of their faith was nothing less than their vision of a New Jerusalem, “the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God. This looking forward came in the form of a desirØing, something which they ‘saw’ and welcomed from the distance. They were ‘longing’ (oregornai) for this better heavenly country. An essential aspect of their faith was this longing for the reality of redemption.
This ‘longing’ resulted in two consequences. They regarded their earthly existence as a temporary passing phase, a training ground for the things to come. Thus they viewed themselves as aliens and strangers on earth (cmp. I Peter 2:11 RSV, Phil. 3:12- 20). This does not necessarily involve an ascetic other-worldliness. Instead, it forms the vision from which involvement
in this world is motivated toward justice and righteousness. The second consequence is that this ‘longing’ was recognized by God. “Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.” (vs 16b). Those who demonstrated this kind of longing faith were the One’s who were commended for their faith even though they never saw realized what they longed for in this earthly life. The reason for the fact that they did not see this ‘longing’ fulfilled is because “God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect” (vs 40). In the realization that we are involved in a race to a New Jerusalem, the fulfilling of our heavenly desires to the utmost, we are to run the race before us without getting tripped up or side tracked.
In a sense, because Christ has established the new diathaekae in his sacrificial death, we have both come to the New Jerusalem and yet we have not fully arrived. Hebrews 13:14 points out once again that we do not realize this heavenly Jerusalem here on earth, rather we, like Abraham are looking for that city which is to come.
2. The tension that arises in the book of Hebrews is that chapter 12:22ff implies that we have already arrived at this New Jerusalem, we are already within the walls of the city which Abraham was looking forward to. We have already come (Proselaeluthate = perfect md. act 2nd plur) to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the Living God. F. F. Bruce points out that there is a tension between spiritual reality and physical reality. “the people of God are still a pilgrim people, treading the ‘highways to Zion”, but by virtue of His sure promise they have already arrived there in spirit.” This spiritual- earthly, upper - lower tension is very real. There is also another sense in which the Christian has, but has not, yet arrived. The Pauline eschatological tension of the already and not yet can also be seen in this passage. The Christian has tasted of the ‘first frUits’ of his full redemption, and this taste creates in him ever greater desire to experience the total reality. We are part of the Church which demonstrates the effects of redemption in its community life, and that taste of that reality drives us to greater desires for the ultimate eschatological reality.
The New Jerusalem, like the Old Testament concept of the city itself, is the place where the Living God dwells with his people. The Christians have come to the city where there are ‘thousands upon thousands of Angels in joyful assembly’. This probably reflects Daniels vision of the ‘Ancient of Days’ in Daniel 7:9-14 (cnf. Rev. 5:11). Furthermore, the Christians are regarded as having come to the ‘Church of the Firstborn whose names are written in heaven’. The designation ‘Firstborn’ has been interpreted in various ways. One way is to understand it as referring to some of the angels in the previous verse. In the Extracts of Theodotus, the highest angels are call the pwtoktistoi or ‘first created’. This interpretation is questionable because it does not reflect the fact that the passage is talking about the ‘Church’. This paper takes the position that ‘The Firstborn’ can be regarded as a title for the collective community, the Church. As such, especially since ‘The Firstborn’ might better be translated ‘of the first - born ones’ since it is plural, this might refer to those who have run the race of faith in earlier times. But the designation of the Church as the ‘first - born ones’ might most fittingly be ascribed to the church in general because Christ is the First Born par excellence.
Christ is clearly called the ‘First Born’ in Heb 1:6, (cnf 2:l3ff) Col. 1:15,18; Rev. 1:5. The Church receives this designation by virtue of its union with Him and its participation in his death and resurrection.
The fact that the inhabitants of the ‘Church’ have their names ‘written in heaven’ reflects the citizenship scroll imagery of Jerusalem. The point is clear, those who identify with Christ have come to this new city in which they already have their citizenship. They belong to the Church of the Firstborn.
The scroll imagery reflects the imagery of Ps. 87. In this Psalm, the nations from the ends of the earth find that they are identified as being ‘born in Zion’. Malachi 3:16 (cnf Ps. 69:28) reflects this same imagery except it identifies those on the scroll with those that fear the Lord. Thus they will be Gods treasured possession. Isaiah 4:3 reflects the holiness of these people who are in Zion, whose names have been recorded in her. Clearly, this scroll imagery reflects citizenship within the city of Jerusalem, and in the context of our passage, within the city of the New Jerusalem. In Luke 10:20, the desciples are exhorted by Christ not to rejoice because the demons listen to them, rather they are to rejoice because their names are written in heaven (cnf. Ex. 32:32, Daniel 7:10, 12:1, Ezekiel 13:9, Ps 69:28, Rev. 20:12). The scroll that defines the citizens of this New Jerusalem is opened up by the Christ, as the elders exclaim
You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals because you were slain
and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.
You have made them to be a kingdom of priests to serve our God
and they will reign on the earth. (Rev 5:9-10).
As this redemption song makes very clear, Christ and his work is the key to the scroll, the citizenship of the New Jerusalem. They come to a city where God is the judge of all men, to where the spirits of righteous men made perfect are. In this heavenly theocracy, God is enthrone as King and Judge. In this new city, the blessings of his presence are realized. Those who at one time in faith looked to a city which was afar off (Heb 10:14, 11:40) now have come to perfection by the blessed presence of God in the New Jerusalem.
All of this is realized in Jesus the mediator of the new and better covenant through whose blood the saints have cleansing, forgiveness and peace with God. The New Covenant established in Jesus Christ is the key to citizenship in the New Jerusalem.
C. Revelation 3:l2ff also refers to this New Jerusalem. This passage essentially repeats the citizenship theme of the previous passage. The one who overcomes will have the name of God, the name of the New Jerusalem and the new name of Christ written upon him. “The impact of the threefold inscription is to show that the faithful belong to God, hold citizenship in the New Jerusalem, and are in a special way related to Christ.” (R. H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation (Grand
Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1977), p. 121.) In this context where the temple image plays a prominent role, the Aaronic priesthood probably functions as background. According to Exodus 28:36-38, Aaron wore on his forehead a golden plate with the engraving “Holy to the Lord” (cnf. Rev 7:3, 14:1 and 22:4).
The phrase “I will make [him who overcomes] a pillar in the temple of my God. Never will he leave it4’ is interesting. In Rev 21:22, John seems to deny the existence of the temple in the New Jerusalem. Mounce justifies this ‘inconsistency on the basis of the fluid character of apocalyptic imagery (Mounce, p. 121). A better option might be in the understanding of the term ‘temple. - John may very well be referring to the ‘spiritual’ temple which was established by Christ in his three day death - resurrection event (John 2:19). This is supported by the fact that, even though John does not see a temple, a temple does exist in the New Jerusalem. The temple is God himself and the Lamb! (21:22). On another level, the New Testament image of the temple of God in which every Christian is a living stone might function as a proper basis for understanding this temple theme. God is no longer worshipped in a specific place, rather those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth. They as a community form the temple. In this passage, the temple image is used mainly to create a metaphor for permanence (Mounce, p. l2Of.).
In this short passage, the New Jerusalem is seen to be coming down out of heaven. This contrasts the Qumran perspective which viewed the New Jerusalem as an earthly reality. Yet, it must be noted that one of the two strains of apocryphal literature viewed the New Jerusalem as coming out of heaven.
D. The last section of scripture deals with the New Jerusalem, the focus of the Christians desire. In one passage, it brings together almost all the themes which have already been discussed. They will be discussed briefly, as different foci of the one unit.
1. This New Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven (21:1,10) is regarded as the Bride of the Lamb. This more common designation for the Church has behind it the imagery of the bride and the wife of Isaiah 54, especially vs 5, and 62:3ff. The picture is of a bride who has been prepared for the Lamb, the eschatological vision is that the bride and the Lamb have become one (cnf Is. 54:5, 62:3ff). The Bride is pure and dedicated to the Lamb. There is nothing in her that is shameful or deceitful (21:22). The Bride has been prepared by the Lamb to the state of perfection. This idea of perfection lies behind the entire section which describes the New Jerusalem in terms of jewels and measurements (21:15—21)
2. The glory of the New Jerusalem is derived from the fact that God is there! The Old Testament imagery of God ‘tabernacling’ in Zion, of making His Home in Jerusalem, lies behind the incredible scope of expected blessing in this New Jerusalem. Of this New Jerusalem, it is said that “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.” (21:3) The expected blessings of his presence are pictured in terms of metaphors for paradise. “He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” (21:4) New garden images, based on Ezekiel 47 are also evoked in 22:lff.
God’s presence with men is related to the fact that he rules in Jerusalem, thus the Old Testament image of theocracy is once again picked up. The doxa concept of God’s presence is particularly strong in this passage. As God’s ‘glory’ represented a visible manifestation of His presence among men in the Old Testament, so now to that glory shines so bright that it provides light for the entire New Jerusalem and all the nations will walk by its light. Its brightness is so intense that there will be no day or night. The glory of the Lord will provide light for all since the Lord himself is their light! (21:11, 23, 22:5)
In the Old Testament and the New Testament, the doxa theme is closely tied to the temple theme. In Exodus 40:34ff, the glory (=presence cnf. 33:14) of the Lord is said to descend upon the tabernacle. The theme of Gods glory in the temple prevails throughout the Old Testament. In the New Testament, Christ’s presence among men is said to be God’s Glory (John 1:14). In the New Jerusalem, as God and the Lamb are the glorious light for the city, so to they are also its temple, the center of the glory for the city. Thus the city has no ‘temple’ rather “the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple (21:22).
4. Those who overcome are to be sons of God. They will receive the inheritance that is promised to those who are part of the new diathaekae which is established in Christ, of which Abraham is one of its first representatives (cnf Heb 11, Rom 8 - sonship - inheritance). Thus, because the covenant which Christ has established is an eternal covenant which has extended back to the time of Abraham and Noah (Heb 11), so now this city also reflects its continuity with the Old Testament. The New Jerusalem has three sets of three gates, reflecting the twelve tribes of Israel. But the city itself is not founded on the tribes, rather it is founded on the 12 apostles. Thus the image is one of essential continuity with the Old Testament, yet it makes it very clear that it is only the New covenant which forms the foundation of participation in the New Jerusalem, which was spread through the work of the apostles.
5. The citizenship theme, discussed when dealing with Hebrews 12 is once again picked up. Here, the focus of those who have the names written on the scrolls is that they are righteous (21:27, 22:4). Once again the Aaronic head plate image is picked up designating that these chosen citizens are ‘Holy to the Lord’ (cnf Zech 14:20).
6. Specific paradise imagery is picked up from the temple imagery of Ezekiel 47 and Zech 14. Out of the temple (which in Revelation is co-extensive with God, the Lamb and the Holy City) flows a river of the water of Life. This may well reflect paradise symbolism (cnf. Gen. 2:10). On each side of the river stands the tree of life (Cnf Ezekiel 47:12) the leaves of which bring healing to the nations. Not only does this tree of life reflect the ‘Tree of Life’ in the garden of Eden (Gen. 2:9), but its abundance of a variety of fruit is a common symbol for the blessings of paradise in the Old Testament.
The river of life and the tree of life symbolize shalom and rest (cnf. Proverbs 3:18, 11:30, 13:12, 15:4). The picture is one of wholesomeness in which the people of the New Jerusalem have found an eternal bliss.
This paper to this point has focused almost entirely on a Reformed perspective of the significance of the City of Jerusalem. The question that still needs answering concerns the present day significance of the actual city of Jerusalem, especially in the light of some present day dispensational understandings of the New Jerusalem.
A Reformed perspective asserts that the earthly Jerusalem no longer has ‘eternal’ significance because it has been rejected as ‘God’s city’ by Jesus Christ because it did not recognize the day and time of God’s coming (Luke 19:4lff) and it no longer functions as the earthly center of worship (John 4:2lff). Yet, among Christian circles, there is far from any unanimity in the understanding of the significance of the present day Jerusalem. Pre — millenarian dispensationalism is the group which gives the greatest importance to the present Jerusalem. Jerusalem is called by some, the sign for the latter days or the ‘key to the future’. Walvoord calls Jerusalem the ‘thermometer of Christ’s return.’ The reason dispensationalists give such significance to Jerusalem is integrally intertwined with their dispensational system, the main tenets of which influence their ‘Jerusalem concept’ as follows.
Dispensationalists insist on a fundamental continuing distinction between Israel and the Church. Thus many of the promises given to Israel concerning their future blessing were never intended to apply to the church, they could only apply to Israel restablished in its own land at some future period of time. This distinction is closely related to their insistence that Old Testament prophecies must be interpreted literally and will be fulfilled literally. The promises, especially of land and land related blessings, cannot be ‘spiritualized’ so that they apply to the church. They were given to Israel particularly and they stay with Israel only. These two fundamental principles in dispensational theology effect the dispensational understanding of world events today. The fact that Israel won decisively in the 1967 Seven Day War is regarded as a sign of the indestructibility of Israel. It is also regarded as a sign that the ‘times of the gentiles is fulfilled (re. Luke 21:24). The occasion has now been set for the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem since Israel now has total control of the city.
Dispensational theologians have adopted some major presuppositions that make their understanding of the present significance of Jerusalem highly suspect.
Dispensationalist views of the New Jerusalem vary widely. The two main points in their discussion are
a) Is the New Jerusalem literal or symbolic?
b) What is the relation of the New Jerusalem to the millennium and eternity?
Most dispensationalists insist that Johns apocalyptic vision of the New Jerusalem is entirely literal (once again based on their literal approach to interpretation). From the perspective of the writer, which accepts both a literal and symbolic understanding of john’s vision, the dispensationalists have gone a little to far in their literal approach. Many insist that the Jewels and precious metals of which the city is constructed must be understood literally. A reformed perspective would leave room for the symbolic in apocalyptic vision and regard these visionary representations as reflective of the incredible glory (doxa) of God whose “brilliance is like that of a very precious jewel” (Rev. 21:11).
The size and dimensions of the city are also much debated. Once again, leaving room for the symbolic in John’s vision solves some problems. If taken literally, the vast size staggers the imagination or as Barnes writes: “The idea of a city literally descending from heaven and being set upon the earth with such proportions is absurd.” If the symbolic understanding of the city is accepted, then one can recognize that its apparent cubical shape reflects the shape of the ‘Holy of Holies’, a theme totally consistent with the fact that God is with men in the New Jerusalem.
The question of the relation of the New Jerusalem to the millennium and eternity has perplexed many dispensationalists. A Reformed view, which would affirm only one return of Christ understands John’s apocalyptic vision of the New Jerusalem to refer to the eternal state only, and this position is supported by a parallelist interpretation of Revelation, thus Revelation 21-22:7 paints two portraits of the same city in the same time period. But dispensationalists see definite time distinctions in these two representations of the New Jerusalem. Three possible views will be discussed in summary form.
1. The views of Darby, Ironside, Kelly and Scott posit that John describes the eternal state in Rev. 21:1-8 and describes the millennial reign in Rev. 21:9—22:7. This view is based on the understanding that ‘retrospection’ is done by John more often in the book of revelation. Others affirm that the second vision is millennial because the titles used have a millennial flavor. Another argument in favor of a millennial understanding of the second vision is the existence of the tree which is for the healing of the nations. In a totally renewed heaven and earth, a tree for the ‘healing’ of the nations would be unnecessary. The very existence of nations is argued to be contrary to the understanding of the eternal state.
2. Others hold that John’s vision describes only the eternal state. This perspective is held because of the distinctly ‘eternal’ concepts and words used in these passages.
There is no temple, there is no day or night, it is the ‘New Jerusalem’, the throne of God is present with men, there is no curse of the fall, and all its occupants will have their names written in the book of Life. This picture has little to do with the millennium since it is a vision of the eternal. At best, any semi-millennarian references show that the millennium typically reflects the eternal state.
3. Pentecost opts for a third view that tries to combine the above two. The New Jerusalem is hovering over the earth in its light giving and ruling functions during the millennium - like a giant space ship! The conditions on earth fit that of the mi1lennium, the conditions in the hovering city are essentially that of eternity. Pentecost posits:
At the rapture and resurrection of the church, the saints of this age are ... installed in that prepared place (New Jerusalem) ... This place is moved down into the air to remain over the land of Palestine during the millennium At the expiration of the millennium ... the dwelling place is removed during the conflagration, to find its place (another descent) after the recreation as the connecting link between the new heaven and the new earth.
The Lord promised to prepare a place for His own. At the rapture and resurrection of the church the saints of this age are, after judgment and marriage, installed in that prepared place. They are joined by the saints of the Old Testament at the time of their resurrection at the second advent. This dwelling place prepared for the bride, in which the Old Testament saints find their place as servants (Rev. 22:3), is moved down into the air to remain over the land of Palestine during the millennium, during which time the saints exercise their right to reign. These saints are in their eternal state and the city enjoys its eternal glory. At the expiration of the millennial age, during the renovation of the earth, the dwelling place is removed during the conflagration, to find its place after the recreation as the connecting link between the new heavens and the new earth.
For Pentecost, this affirms that the city is literal, it leaves room for the city to be the eternal dwelling place for the raptured and resurrected, it places the ‘natiOns’ on the earth and not in the City and it establishes some form of relationship between the millennial saints and the raptured — resurrected saints. Pentecost understands Rev. 21—22:7 to be a vision of “the eternal state of the resurrected during the millennium.”
This paper concludes with what it understands to be the Reformed significance of the Jerusalem concept.
Conclusion
The complex and beautiful imagery of the New Jerusalem should be the delight of the Christian’s imagination. In our present existence of moral and spiritual tension, having tasted but still desiring more, and more, this symbol can give food for much hope and strength. That was exactly john’s intent when he wrote the Apocalypse. In a world where suffering seems to prevail, the Christian has the hope and joy of knowing that he does not belong to this world, rather he is a citizen of a New Jerusalem where “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” The desire for this realization is inflamed by the fact that we taste the New Jerusalem even now, but at the same time we ‘long to arrive’ (Phil. 1:21—24, 3:7—14,20). And it is Christ’s call to us to come and drink from this Stream of Living Water, to satisfy our thirst (21:6, 22:17), to inflame our desire until, one day, those intensified longings and desires can be realized in the New Jerusalem!
__________________________
Footnotes:
1 TDNT has a long paragraph in discussion of related terms which is well worth duplicating for reference p. 293-294. “In the OT, Zion is used 154 times. It is very unevenly distributed. In almost a third of the instances there is no addition or parallel, especially in Is., Jer. and Ps. Mostly, however, there is an addition; in 20 cases this is the geographical and topographical designation har, “Mount.” We also find the plural Harri “mountains” in Ps. 133:3... and combined bat har “mountain of the daughter” in Is. 10:32 conj.; 16:1. Mtsudah also occurs in II Sam 5:7; I Ch. 11:5 in the sense of “inaccessible place” rather than “fortress”. Many other additic3 relate to the population: bat “daughter 23 times or btulat bat “virgin daughter” in II Kings 19:21; Lam 2:13, more explicitly yoshevet “inhabitants” in Is. 12:6; Jer 51:35 and beni or bnot zion “sons or daughters of Zion in Is. 3:l6f.; 4:4 etc. We also find expressions like “gates of Zion” in Is. 60:14 and “song of Zion in Ps. 137:3.
A series of parallel terms is associated with Zion and helps to bring out its many different meanings. Only rarely is it equated with the Davidic part of the city by the parallel “city of David,” II Sam 5:7, I Kings 8:1, I Ch. 11:5; II Ch. 5:2, but “Jerusalem” is very often a parallel (more than 40 times) and once “Salem” in Ps. 76:2. Other parallels bring out, religious or cultic function. It is the “city of Yahweh” (Is. 60;l4) to which one resorts (Jer. 31:6), the “the city of our God” in Ps. 48:2, His “Holy Mountain” in Joel 2:1; Ps. 48:2 and His “sanctuary” in Ps. 20:2. Materially parallels are the apposition “my holy mountain” in Joel 3:l7;l Ps 2:6 and the parallel “temple hill” with Jerusalem in Micah 3:12; cf. Jer. 26:18. Finally “Zion” is parallel with “Israel” in Is 46:13, Zeph. 3:l4ff.; Ps 149:2, “Jerusalem” and “Jacob” in Lam 1:17, “him that turns from iniquity in Jacob” in Is 59:20 and the “community of the righteous” in Ps 149:2. The synthetic juxtaposition is also instructive. With Zion we find “Judah” in Jer. 14:19, the “land” in Is. 66:8, the “cities of Judah” in Ps. 69:35; Lam. 5:11 and “daughters of Judah” in Ps. 48:12, 97:8. With “sons of Zion” we find “Judah” and “ephraim” in Zech. 9:13, with “Mount Zion” the “tribe of Judah” in Ps. 78:68.”
A contrast between Samaria and Jerusalem can be seen. Jerusalem is also identified with “the temple and palace” Jer. 27:18. The “House of David and its inhabitants” are equated with Jerusalem (Zech. 12:10; 13:1). It is also called the “holy city”, “holy mountain”, and “the throne of Yahweh”.
The capture of Jerusalem “was one of the most imaginative of Davids exploits: he eliminated the foreign wedge between the southern and northern tribes, and obtained a capital in the neutral area, which became royal property by right of conquest. From this time on, Jerusalem played a central role in the history of Israel. This step ushered in a new policy on the part of David, aimed at conquering the entire Land of Canaan, and to append the foreign enclaves to Israelite territory.” - Map 100, The Macmillan Bible Atlas, by Aharoni and Avi-Yonaii (New York: Macmillan Pub. Co. Inc., 1977).
More than just the city is ‘elected’ by Yahweh. “Chronicles, too, speaks of the election of David in I Ch. 28:4, II Ch. 6:6, or Solomon in I Ch. 28:5f.; 29:1, and of the city of Jerusalem in II Ch. 6:6, 34, 38; 12:13; 33:7, though also of the priest and Levites in II Ch. 29:11 and the Jerusalem temple in II Ch. 7:16.” TDNT, p. 308 ad loc. Some commentators make the simple identification between the Melchizedekian ‘Salem’ and the City of Jerusalem’\Those in the Premillenial camp use this to support the argument that the City of Jerusalem is indestructible as the city &€“God to this world. Thus its presence today and its role in world events become very important for predicting the future. Yet, according the essential argument of Hebrews chapter 7, Salem and Jerusalem should not be identified. If Jerusalem represents the Old Covenant with its cultic temple practices, the new Priest after the order of Melchizedek is of a New Covenant after an order of a different city — Salem! The essential argument is one of contrast, not continuum! This view would take Ps. 110:4 as directly Messianic, ie. pointing to the Christ for fulfillment and not primarily to the contemporary experience of the Psalmist. Yet this position does not necessarily undermine the significance of Old Testament Jerusalem as a center for a ‘court- sacral theology’.
The theocratic emphasis is much stronger in H. Schultz’ article in Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Cohn Brown, Vol. II., (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. House, 1976), pp. 324-329.
“On the three great feasts, especially the Passover, the number of pilgrims was often much greater than that of the inhabitants... One of the 10 miracles of God in the sanctuary, ie., while the temple still stood, was that no one in Jerusalem ever said to another that there was no room to put him up for the night.” (TDNT, p. 324, ad loc).
6 “If the heavenly Jerusalem was once made by God along with Paradise (S. Bar. 4:3), at the end of times Paradise will also return with the new Jerusalem. The Paradise of the end time and new Jerusalem are so close together that they form the one place of salvation: “The saints will rest in Eden and the righteous will rejoice over the new Jerusalem,” Test. D. 5. (TDNT, p. 327 ad loc).
But then again, so is invoking an oath in the name of the earth or heaven, thus the main point is — ‘let what you say be sincere’. Yet the very images used seem to picture a cosmic theocracy, almost an extension of the Jerusalem image to the entire cosmos. The Lord is said to be ‘enthroned in Zion’, here the whole universe is his throne!
J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Ohio: Dunham Pub. Co., 1958), p.127.
Ibid.
Ibid.
“Our author may retain the symbolism of ‘up there’ when he speaks of God, but he makes it clear that His people need not climb the heavenly steeps to seek Him, for He is immediately accessible to each believing heart, making His dwelling in the fellowship of the faithful.” F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, (Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans’ Pub. Co., 1964), p. 375)
Ibid., p. 377.
Mormons also give the present day Jerusalem great significance, but it has a significant role alongside the American New Jerusalem (Salt Lake City). Much thought in Mormonism parallels dispensational thought in regards to Jerusalem and its significance in the end times.
14 S. Maxwell Coder, quoted in Armageddon Now: The Premillennarian Response to Russia and Israel Since 1917. by Dwight Wilson. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977). p. 192.
15 J. Dwight Pentecost in Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatoloqy summarizes the dispensational hopes for Jerusalem and Palestine nicely. He writes concerning Jerusalem in the Millennium: “A number of facts are made clear from a study of the prophecies concerning the place of Jerusalem in that age. (1) Jerusalem will become the center of the millennial earth (Isa 2:2—4, Jer. 31:6; Mic. 4:1, Zech 2:10—11). Because the world is under the dominion of Israel’s King, the center of Palestine become the center of the entire earth. (2) Jerusalem will be the center of the kingdom rule (Jer. 3:17; 30:16—17; 31:6, 23; Ezek. 43:5—6; Joel 3:17; Mic. 4:7; Zech. 8:2-3). The city that was the center of David’s government will become the center of the government of David’s greater son. (3) The city will become a glorious city, bringing honor unto Jehovah (Isa. 52:1-12, 60:14—21; 61:3; 62:1—12; 66:10—14; Jer. 30:18; 33:16; Joel 3:17; Zech 2:113). So closely is the King associated with Jerusalem that the city will partake of His glory. (4) The city will be protected by the power of the King (Isa. 14:32; 52:4; 26:1—4; 33:20—24) so that it never again need fear for its safety. (5) The city will be greatly enlarged over its former area (Jer. 31: 38—40; Ezek. 48:30—35; Zech. 14:10). (6) It will be accessible to all in that day (Isa. 35:8-9) so that all who seek the King will find audience within its walls. (7) Jerusalem will become the center of worship of the age (Jer. 30:16—21; 31:6, 23; Joel 3:17; Zech. 8:8, 20—23). (8) The City will endure forever (Isa. 9:7; 33:20—21; 60:15; Joel 3:19—21; Zech 8:4) .“
From the perspective of this paper, Pentecost has made some obvious errors in equating prophecies that are intended to refer to the New Heavenly City of Jerusalem with the present earthly city in a millennial age. Pentecost goes on to assert his prophetic hopes for the land of Palestine which will be listed in summary fashion. (1) Palestine will become the particular inheritance of Israel which will essentially fulfill God’s covenants with Israel. (2) The land will be greatly enlarged in comparison to its former area. For the first time Israel will possess all the land promised to Abraham. (3) The topography of the land will be altered. Instead of the mountainous terrain which characterizes Palestine today, a great fertile plain will come into existence at the second advent of Messiah so that Palestine will truly be “beautiful for situation”. This changed topography will permit the river to flow out from the city of Jerusalem and divide to the seas to water the land. (4) There will be renewed fertility and productivity in the land. The the plowman wil 1 overtake the reaper because of the productivity of the land. (5) There will be an abundance of rainfall. Throughout the Old Testament the rain was a sign of God’s blessing and approval and the absence of rain a sign of God’s disapproval and judgment. The abundance of rain on the earth will be a sign of god’s blessing in that day. (6) The land will be reconstructed after being ravaged during the tribulation period. The remnants of destruction will be removed that the earth may be clean again. (7) Palestine will be redistributed among the twelve tribes of Israel according to Ezek. 48:1-29.
Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament, Vol. XI. (London: Blackie and Sons, n.d.), p. 480.
17 Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology. (Ohio: Dunham Pub. Co., 1958), p. 563.
Such names as “Lord God Almighty” and “the Lamb” are contrasted with the first vision where these terms are not present. This position (Kelly, William. The Revelation, p. 460) is very weak since these names are used throughout scripture.
Pentecost, pp. 572ff.
Pentecost, p. 580.
Ibid.
Hmmm. A lot to chew on. What can I add? I suppose this:
It was an amazing experience when in Israel I sang songs of ascent with others as our bus climbed the hills up to Jerusalem; to feel a spiritual charge in the air as I walked the old city and observed firsthand the diversity and cultural crossroad this old city had become, and always was.
It seems that Jerusalem is also a crossroad of hope, desire, and the kingdom.
Recently I've been reading "The Journey of Desire" by John Eldredge. He makes this bold statement, "Desire cannot live without hope. Yet we can only hope for what we desire. There must be something more, something out there on the road ahead of us, that offers the life we prize. To sustain the life of the heart, the life of deep desire, we desperately need to possess a clearer picture of the life that lies before us."
One of his arguments is that we have often gotten it wrong - we [Christians] often devalue and try to kill desire - when in fact we need to dig deeper to the true desire within, the desire for life as it was meant to be. There are many scriptural references to support this. It is interesting how often Jesus would ask someone what they "wanted" when many times it seemed obvious.
It has been said that the Gospel of Matthew focuses on Christ as King, and therefore talks about his kingdom in various forms and ways throughout. What is a king without a kingdom? And what is a kingdom without a king? And since the power and authority of this kingdom finds it's source in the sovereign eternal God, then it is a kingdom that endures (can never be overthrown) and it's borders are nonexistent (so we are all subjects). But as true as this is, it becomes irrelevant to living in the here and now unless our hope and passion are sought, found and expressed in Christ day by day (where the rubber meets the road).
It gets more complicated. Because we have misconceptions of heaven and the kingdom to come, we have little desire for it, and try to fulfill our desire for "the life as it was meant to be" here in this life, in this flawed world in which we live. If we could only grasp the depth of beauty, joy, pleasure, intimacy with God and fellow man, and a life lived to the full that awaits us. It would whet our appetite so much more. Even Jesus endured the cross for the joy set before him. We need to awaken our true desire (not suppress or kill it). When we do, present troubles will trouble us less and hope will burn that much brighter. Of course, the kingdom is a now-and-not-yet sort of thing (as Peter R. also alluded to). I guess the point is that the kingdom can't just be good ideas and theology. We have to grasp that the kingdom (and God as King) is the fulfillment of our deepest desires for life as it was meant to be. The New Jerusalem is so much more than another version of Never Never Land or Avalon, a nice dream. The New Jerusalem is the place where it all comes together, where the hope we carry in this life is finally realized, where God is no longer seemingly distant or even disinterested. Rather, he is very near, and dare I say "tangible". He dwells with us; He lives and walks with us, very much as it began in the garden.
And if we begin to grasp this, we then begin to understand how awesome it is that we get a foretaste of the kingdom in this life. We have the privilege of beginning to live the kingdom life now. God's reign and rule doesn't begin in some unforeseeable distant future. It exists right now all around us, always has and always will.
What do you mean?
Post a Comment