There are currently 0 users and 1 guest online.
Monthly Archive
Donate to Josh
Are you blessed and encouraged by this website? Help keep it running and help fund an intercessory missionary! See more information on supporting Josh.
The New Jerusalem in all its glory
Posted March 17th, 2008 - 8:14 pm
End-times junkie alert!
I was going through some old email and found this humorous forwarded image from Mike Bickle... You can see the corridor of glory and everything.
In all seriousness, if it looks like that, well, Abraham was a pretty silly guy.
Posted in 
Question...
Cool!
One thing I have never been convinced of from IHOP, in terms of an eschatological interpretation of the millennial kingdom, is that the new Jerusalem makes an appearance during those 1000 years. From my reading of Revelation >20 it seems very clear to me that the new Jerusalem descends from heaven to the new Earth (which incidentally has no sea) after the 'heavens and the earth flee away from the face of Jesus..' and the Great White throne of judgment.
I'm not locked in to any one view but I have yet to be convinced in scripture of a millennial kingdom new Jerusalem hovering above the Earth with a corridor of glory connecting the two.
Washo, see Rev. 21:24 and 27
Washo, see Rev. 21:24 and 27 and Ps. 48... There are apparently earthly kings around that bring their glory and honor into the city, people who are around that do not have their names written in the Book of Life, and there is apparently still things on the earth that are defiled and are not permitted to enter the city. Some of the kings are even gripped with fear at the sight of the city...
This can only happen during the MK, because after the rebellion of Rev. 20 and the coming of the new earth, there's no more curse, no more defilement, and everyone has a resurrected body.
Dig into it... Hope it helps!
Cool, but...
Yes I see that.
But I would point out that Rev 21 follows Rev 20, which leads me to this central question: why after the vision of the Great White throne (Rev 20), after the Satanic rebellion is crushed, do we skip back to the millennial kingdom (Rev 20) when the scriptures has clearly and very dramatically in Rev 21 moved on to describe the New Jerusalem in the context of a post-Judgement New Earth/Heaven?
All of these scriptures appear to me to be very chronological. But then if this is true, the scriptures you raised are very provocative:
Rev 21:24 "... and the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honour into it..."
Rev 21:27 "... but there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomintion or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life."
So like I said, if these verses that follow the passages on the millennial kingdom and the Great White throne judgement respectively, this would mean that there are still nations with kings on the New Earth. But then from Isaiah 9:7 it says that the increase and peace of Jesus' government there will be no end... which implies expansion that would make 'saved' kingdoms on a New Earth a potential reality. I agree that sin is out of the picture completely and I don't think that Rev 21:27 implies that there is.
Concerning the Great White Throne Judgement in Rev 20:11-15... I want to postulate a theory without being heretical (so have mercy!), but this passage describes that only the dead are judged. What I'm getting at is this: those that didn't take part of the Satanic rebellion in Rev 20:7-10 might make up the population of 'nations that are saved' which are referred to in Rev 21:24 in the New Earth. Whether they have resurrected bodies... I don't know, the Bible doesn't focus on it so I'll tread lightly on my speculation. In short, there are some interesting things to reconcile that represent paradigm shifts if my interpretation is correct, and I certainly don't claim to have insight or answers to what all of that would mean.
For my vantage point, to claim that certain portions of Rev 21 link back to the millennial kingdom while others don't is difficult to reconcile. Case in point: Rev 21:3-4 describes the well known 'wipe away ever tear from their eyes...' passage right after John sees the New Jerusalem descending out of heaven to the New Earth (note: this is the first time the New Jerusalem is seen and no mention of it exists in Rev 20:1-10 which describes the millennial kingdom). After John sees this, an Angel takes him by the Spirit to take a better look at the New Jerusalem, clearly in context of what he saw Rev 21:1-8. After a more detailed description of the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:10-23), verse 24 describes the nations and kings bring their glory into city (now that I think about it, these nations and kings are written into the Lamb's book of life otherwise they would not be permitted access). Now to say that Rev 21:24 is linking back to the millennial kingdom in Rev 19:1-10 while Rev 21:1-23 which applies to New Earth/Heavens (after the millennial kingdom and the Great White throne) is not convincing... especially as Rev 22 continues in the same breath after Rev 21:24, describing even in Rev 22:4 of us seeing His face (wow), which clearly can't happen during the millennial kingdom (see Rev 20:11).
Sorry this is a long post... I hope you can see my rationale! Also Josh, I just want to state for the record that I'm not being contentious for the sake of it - I'm really interested in being wrong about this and therefore am completely open for you to pick apart my argument... I'm not married to this interpretation at all.
God Bless
Hey Washington, I'm in
Hey Washington, I'm in Orlando for the onething here this weekend so I don't have time for a detailed response today (definitely early next week though) but let me just throw this wrench into your theory.
If the New Jerusalem does not come until after the millennium, then why would the nations need healing from the leaves of the tree of life in the city in Rev. 22:2? What are the purpose of the leaves and why would the nations need to be healed if all things have been made perfect already?
Good question
Perhaps because they have seen all of their loved ones just get burned to death by the fire of God in the final rebellion and then judged for it... I think I would need some healing after that!
But there is a greater context to your question that exists on 2 realms:
1) Really my interpretation is alluding to in essence 'mortal' people repopulating the Earth after the millennial kingdom for eternity... Which I freely admit is strange and not something people have heard before. Maybe they have resurrected bodies (in which case there would be no repopulating)... I don't know, like I said before there isn't much clarity on the subject so its difficult to speculate. However if they are mortal, the tree of life would prevent them from dying for eternity... Which would result in a great reset and restoration back to the original plan of God for humanity in the garden of Eden (remember why the angel was placed to prevent Adam and Eve from returning to the garden after they sinned). As for us with resurrected bodies, we live with God in the New Jerusalem as faithful overcomers who chose Jesus during the Satanic rebellion of old (which encompasses everything in between Adam and the millennial rebellion).
2) I acknowledge that if my interpretation is correct then it will lead to some fairly interesting questions like the one you just posed that will need time for us to get our heads around... But I really feel that those questions are far less disturbing than the ones raised if Rev 21 is jumping back and forth through time without it being clearly stated. So really what I want to avoid is this discussion being over what my interpretation would mean (for the moment) and really focus on the guts on Rev 21... If the passages in Rev 21 are not chronological then show me why they aren't here as oppose to Rev 19 and 20 which are.
On a final note, I'm a dyed in the wool apostolic premillennialist with no issues at all with other eschatalogical interpretation, so you don't need to worry about me going amill on you!
Enjoy Orlando... I wish I could be there bit unless you can convince Dwayne to do Onething Brisbane, Australia, it will be a little while until I see you guys.
God bless
Hey man, you've indeed
Hey man, you've indeed raised some good points. Of course I don't want to hold so hard fast to my interpretation of a "jumping around" in chronology, but I've got a couple reasons why that's what I'm running with at least right now:
1) There are apparent passages in Revelation that jump out of chronology or traverse through time rapidly, including Rev. 12, Rev. 16:15, the one I mentioned in Rev. 22:2, all of the parenthetical sections, among others... I wish it was as easy as saying the whole book was chronological!
2) The idea of "mortals" without resurrected bodies after the millennium on the new earth can't really be reconciled with passages like 1 Cor. 15:50 and the "purging" with fire of 2 Peter 3, if we're assuming the consummation of the Millennial Kingdom brings the "perfect" and the Father Himself makes His abode on the earth. 1 Cor. 11 sets up the context and then 1 Cor. 15 really hits these points hard... Mortals cannot inherit the kingdom in its fullness. That's probably the most difficult thing you'd have to prove scripturally to hold up your theory.
I've debated these points with several amils in the past, so it's good that we're mostly on the same page already :)
Josh
erratum
"... Guts of Rev 21..."
Sorry, I'm writing this post on my iPod touch!
Hey Josh, I suppose a
Hey Josh,
I suppose a parantheical explanation could explain it, but I'm not conviced of it's likelihood in this context. Granted all of the Revelation is not chronological, although I wish it was, but just given the earlier parts of Rev 21 from verse 1 up to verse 24, I just don't think you can separate them.
Having said all of that, when Jesus returns and I look up in the night sky and see a giant golden city orbiting overhead my response will be: "Huh... cool!"
As for the mortals bit... yeah I know it's a stretch :), so i'm dropping it. But I do think that an explanation of the who, what, where and why of these 'nations' is important as it can lead you to make interesting theories like the one I made.
A second look at these verses (Rev 21:24...) and at first glance it does give the impression of nations/kings going in and out of the New Jerusalem (hence how it fits with a millennial New Jerusalem reality aside from the time/verse jumping issues, which I think trumps it's likelihood).
But these verses don't say that the nations and kings go in and out... it just says that they go in and bring their honour into it. I guess what I'm getting at is that these verses are describing the Great Entry of all saved humanity throughout history into the New Jerusalem. As for the fruit described in Rev 22... I don't have a real good explanation yet, it has incredibly symmetry to Ezekiel 47:12 (wow) which is definitely in reference to the millennial kingdom. So my conclusion, in keeping with my interpretation, that the millennial river (written of in Ezekiel) is a shadow of the heavenly river proceeding from the New Jerusalem (Rev 22).
So yeah... not everything tied together in a neat package, I know it sounds like I'm arguing for both sides sometimes, but my point was just to raise that there is another possible way to interpret these passages of scripture, which I think is more accurate given the chronological ordering of what John wrote.
But like I said earlier... I'm open and not married to this interpretation!
How is Orlando going?
Orlando was awesome! I'll
Orlando was awesome! I'll have some pics up on my site in the next week or so once I get the chance to edit them...
For fun, throw Psalm 48 in your theological soup and see how it tastes... I think it adds some decent flavor to the whole NJ during the MK thing.
Josh
Will do...
Hey,
Great to hear about Orlando... I'm planning to post soon about Psalm 48 but it may take a day or so as there are other things I need to write which take priority.
But it will come!
God Bless,
Washo
Ok... Psalm 48
Classic millennial kingdom passage... without a doubt!
Yet there is nothing to allude that the New Jerusalem is present in that vision. I believe that Jesus will take residence in 'natural' Jerusalem during the millennial kingdom and that is where Ezekiel's temple will be built... perhaps His throne room will be in the Holy of Holies, who knows (have to study it)!
Actually the very reference of kings passing by and running away precludes this passage of scripture from referring to a period of time post-Great White Throne of Judgment. And as I have put forth before, the only section where the New Jerusalem is mentioned is in the post-Great White Throne of Judgment period... which is to say eternity.
I do believe that when Jesus returns and slays the kings and nations who went to war against Him and Jerusalem (Rev 19, Joel 3, Zechariah 12/14 and Psalm 110), and the new governments of the Earth are put into place, the leaders/kings of those nations will take this serious fear of the Lord attitude when passing by the rebuilt/restored 'natural' Jerusalem during the millennial kingdom given what they've seen Jesus just do in Rev 19... also Zechariah 14:16-19 greatly fits-in with this passage of scripture.
In relation to New Jerusalem, I don't think you can use this passage to support the interpretation of a millennial kingdom where the New Jerusalem descends.
Having said that... I'd be happy to be surprised on that day!
Hey Washo, before I address
Hey Washo, before I address your points, I was just wondering where you thought we (the saints with resurrected bodies) would be "living" during the MK...
Josh
Saint's address
Hmm... to be honest, not too sure. I don't think we'll all fit in the natural Jerusalem... and I don't think the argument of 'lack of space' justifies a descending New Jerusalem, although it would be convenient! My guess is that we'll be residing wherever our assignment on Earth is during the millennial kingdom.
For example, if God assigns me to head up some operations in Uganda for 200 years before sending back to Australia the remaining 800 years, then I'll guess I'll be living there... and you'd have to consider call-ups to visit Jesus in the 'natural' Jerusalem every so often as well as our ability to translocate anywhere on Earth at will - which would mean I could reside anywhere I wanted really!
Hey Washo,
Hey Washo,
I'd agree that Ps. 48 is Millennial in nature, but I think it is ultimately describing the New Jerusalem - so much so that grown men run away from it gripped with fear. Why? The nature of the city is the ultimate Holy of Holies (1 Kings 6:19-20) and mortals tremble in fear of God as Israel did with the earthly copy of the Holy of Holies in the OT.
There's definitely many questions that have to be answered if the NJ does not come shortly after the second coming...
What of the saints that died and get a resurrected body at the second coming? Do they live on the earth as well? I can't imagine being resurrected only to have to live on a completely trashed and devastated earth for a few hundred years while we help Jesus fix it up...
I'm taking Jesus literally when He spoke John 14:3 - where He is (the NJ and on the earth) we may be also, after His return.
When Abraham is resurrected at the second coming, even though He had his sights set on the New Jerusalem, where does it say he'll have to wait another thousand years before inheriting the promise?
What of Daniel, in Daniel 12:13 - what is his "inheritance at the end of days"? I personally think it's, in part, the New Jerusalem. He must have been a man with a heart set like Abraham.
Here's where the crux of our discussion lies - I see Rev. 21:9-22:5 as a parenthetical section to contrast it with Rev. 17:1-19:10. One of the angels with the bowls says "let me show you the harlot" - the counterfeit bride. Then in 21:9ff, another angel angel (or perhaps the same one) with the bowls says "now let me show you the real one". There are several things (which I highlighted earlier that raised several questions we've been discussion) that are just out of character with the eternal, post-MK state. We differ in that you see 21:9 as continuing in a chronology from 21:1-8.
I see the MK as the process by which God brings Eph. 1:9-10 to pass, as we see throughout the judgments beginning with the 6th seal, progressing further at the 7th trumpet, and even more so at the 7th bowl - each time the supernatural realm breaks in to the natural realm at a greater level (and an earthquake always ensues). The heavenly city is a dynamic part of bringing the natural and supernatural together - during the MK, Eph. 1:9-10 is substantially fulfilled but it is not finally and ultimately fulfilled until the end of the MK.
You'll definitely want to study up more on Jesus' throne too - I see it as having two dimensions - a heavenly one and an earthly one (as He works to unite the two realms). The earthly can be seen in Matt. 25, Jer. 3, among others, but Rev. 22:3 is the big tip off that there will be a heavenly dimension of His throne too. I think Jacob's ladder is the connection point between these "two" thrones. Does Jesus have two thrones? No, but yes... Heh.
I can't say my theory of the NJ descending during the MK does not come without questions, but for me it's the most logical conclusion after studying many of the passages... I'm much more comfortable running with this for now than having mortals appearing during the eternal state and living on an earth with nations that still need healing.
Wish you were here, it'd be much easier to discuss this face to face! Typing things out is just not the same...
Josh
Hehe...
Nice reply... I'll dig into it over the next few days to flesh out and discuss the points!
I'm finishing my PhD (Science, Prostate Cancer research) in July this year so I'm toying with the idea of visiting IHOP at the end of the year... like a week before Onething and then go straight into it. But I'll have half a dozen of my friends pleading with me to take them if I do, and it's a long trip from Australia to KC!
DO IT!!! :)
DO IT!!!
:)
Reponse - Part 01
Ok... I say part 01 because I have to go out to a birthday party in a couple of minutes so I can't go through this comprehensively.
I would like to focus on what we both agree on as the 'crux of our discussion'... because I think if we can nut this out then we can start to answer the other points you raised (which by the way were very good) in relation to either interpretation.
To restate your arugment: you read Rev 21:9-22:5 as parenthical... I'll give you that, it is parenthical because it has all of the hallmark terminology used in previous parenthical sections. However I disagree that this parenthesis goes back in time 1 chapter to Rev 20... the parenthical section here goes to describe the reality described in Rev 21:1-8 and not the end of Rev 20.
I'll make some of my strongest points:
1) At what point do we first hear the phrase "New Jerusalem"... Rev 21:2
2) Where do we get the idea that the NJ comes out of heaven to the Earth: Rev 21:2
3) What is the context of the descending NJ: Rev 21:1 - "Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea." This has happened directly after the MK and the Great White throne of Judgement.
4) What does it say immediately after the descending NJ: God will wipe away every tear from the eye etc... Eternity begins.
Then in Rev 21:>9 the parenthical section describes an angel of the Lord showing John the finer details of the NJ.. even Rev 21:10 parallels so perfectly with Rev 21:2 so that we can now without doubt that this is the context of what John is seeing. So this parenthical section, like I said before, doesn't bend back in time to talk about the MK.
Like I said before I'm dropping the theory of mortals throughout eternity because it was a stretch and I realised that Rev 21:24 wasn't talking about a context where people go in and out of the city, but rather it was talking about admittance or entrance into the city as reiterated in Rev 22:14-15.
The other issues and questions you've raised are good points but you can find answers to those questions for either interpretation.
Rev 21 is the key!
Hey Washo!
Hey Washo!
Good points. But here are a few quick points in direct response to your list:
Go back and look at Rev. 16:9 (chronological) and Rev. 17 and 18 (parenthetical).
1) The first time we hear about the harlot is Rev. 16:9, right before Rev. 17.
2) Where do we get the idea that Babylon is destroyed? Rev. 16:9, right before Rev. 17.
3) What is the context of Babylon being destroyed and "remembered before God"? Rev. 16:9, the 7th bowl.
The vision, after Rev. 16:9, moves right into Rev. 17 to describe the counterfeit bride, Babylon the harlot.
Clearly the harlot exists BEFORE the Great Tribulation, not after the 7th bowl.
This is the strong precedent I am using to interpret 21:9-22:5 as parenthetical - it parallels the "counterfeit bride" section in 16:9 and 17-18 perfectly in so many ways!!! Even the language and the angel of 17:1 and 21:9 is exactly the same.
Josh
Alirghty then...
Firstly, when you wrote down Rev 16:9 I am assuming you meant Rev 16:19?
The explanation of the parenthical section was very good... and whatever interpretation is correct, at least we found amazing symmetry in two parenthical sections of the Book of Revelation, which should help in looking at other parenthical sections in Rev.
However, your argument here supports my interpretaion more than it does yours... I'll explain. Rev 16:19 there is one verse, seemingly out of nowhere, which references Babylon two verses before finishing off the rest of the 7th bowl judgement. Angel comes along and pulls John into the parenthical vision to explain that bit about Babylon with greater detail and with all the common language used also in Rev 21:9+.
This is the problem though... our difference of interpretation lies in the subject of the parenthesis in Rev 21:9+. You believe that the subject of the parenthesis is before Rev 21:1-8 (after old heaven and earth passes away, new heaven/earth to which the NJ descends - first time NJ is mentioned), before Rev 20:11-15 (Great White Throne of Judgment - GWTJ), before Rev 20:7-10 (the Millennial Rebellion - MR) and directly to Rev 20:1-6 (your subject of the Rev 21:9+ parenthesis). Now that's a massive jumping-back of events especially since Rev 20:1-6 has no use of the term NJ at all.
The precedent you've introduced however, has the subject of the parenthesis (Rev 16:19) introduce and use the term 'Babylon'. Understanding/dating/contexting the parenthical section of Rev 17-18 then makes perfect sense because you know where it's bending back to... it has an anchor in Rev 16:19.
For Rev 21 it's the same thing... the subject of the parenthesis is found in Rev 21:1-8 - this is the anchor for the NJ parenthical section in Rev 21:9+. Rev 21:1-8 introduces and uses the term NJ so that we know that the parenthical section of Rev 21:9+ bends back to this passage of scripture and not further back to Rev 20.
I also have an answer to where the Saint live in the MK if there is no NJ... but we'll stay on topic unless you want to hear my theory?
Washo, just want to start
Washo, just want to start off first to say that I'm loving this discussion. It's amazing what discussion will do to push you deeper into the Lord!
Before I address your specific points, I'll set forth some context of what we've already established:
1) Rev. 17 and 18 are parenthetical.
2) Rev. 21:9-22:5 is a very important parallel parenthetical section of Rev. 17 and 18.
A parenthetical section is, by definition, not chronological, and can't be "dated" with previous events just seen in the chronology. It's a "timeout" out of the storyline for explanation. As you've pointed out, the "subject" of the parenthesis in 17 and 18 is that mentioned in 16:19 - "Babylon".
The context of the timing in 16:19 is clearly the 7th bowl. But we know, from many details in Rev. 17 and 18, that Babylon is in full operation on the earth well before the seventh bowl.
Therefore, I think you would agree that it is not logical to conclude that Babylon is in full operation and the events of Rev. 17 and 18 happen following the 7th bowl.
The same can be said about the timing of other parenthetical sections of Revelation. Rev. 12, as one example, jumps all the way back to the early chapters of Genesis in Rachel and Jacob's time (Gen. 28) and reaches all the way through to the great tribulation.
What you've done in introducing the NJ only following the MK and advent of the new earth is essentially made 21:9-22:5 chronological again. Using your language, Rev. 17 and 18 is clearly a "massive jumping-back of events", especially because the earlier chapters in chronology do not mention Babylon at all. Clearly Rev. 17 and 18 do not "bend back" in time only to Rev. 16:19.
Why would the parenthetical section of 21:9-22:5 be any different if the parallel of 17-18 is exceptionally strong?
Another important thing to remember in context to the parallel parenthesis if Rev. 17 and 18 is that Babylon has a dual fall. Rev. 14:8 (another parenthetical passage) hints at this:
And another angel followed, saying, “Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.”
It's clear from the details of Rev. 17:16 and following that Babylon "falls" substantially when the antichrist comes to power, and then secondly in chronology we see it ultimately decimated by God at the seventh bowl.
Men have built a city and "a name for themselves", invited all men to join in its luxury, and then told the Father that He was not invited. Babylon is such an abomination before God for that reason. The dream of the Father's heart is to dwell face to face with man in a city full of pleasures evermore. Babylon is man's ultimate "spit in the face" towards God. I can't imagine how it pains the Father's heart...
Because of the massive parallels we've identified, I think the New Jerusalem's "revelation to the natural realm" is progressive in the same nature as Babylon in terms of its "fall", or removal from the natural realm (it becomes a dwelling place for all demons and everything evil and its smoke arises forever, which makes me wonder if Babylon and the lake of fire are somehow interconnected - but that is a topic for another discussion, heh). The NJ is present and involved substantially during the MK (whether it "hovers" or not I have no idea) but then completely at the end of the MK.
Josh
Yo
Yeah, I was telling my friends about how cool this discussion was! We are End of the Age junkies :)
Ok... to quote you, what we've covered:
1) Rev. 17 and 18 are parenthetical.
- we definitely agree on that
2) Rev. 21:9-22:5 is a very important parallel parenthetical section of Rev. 17 and 18.
- absolutely
The points about the precedent we've identified in Rev 17-18 are correct... Babylon didn't miracously become a damaging reality in the 7th bowl, it's operation was clearly before the Great Tribulation (maybe earlier!). Parenthical sections, like you said, are not chronological in relation to the previous section all the time... they are pauses/timeouts to go into greater detail about something God is highlighting for our serious attention.
Following this, you conclude that the Rev 21:9+ parenthical section bends back to apply to events in the MK... saying that they are in operation at that time and continue from that point onwards.
But there's just no scriptural evidence to support that point of view in Rev 20:1-6 or anywhere else in the Book of Revelation. Even the parenthical section in Rev 17-18 gives direct scriptural evidence of Babylon's activity before the Great Tribulation, which makes us confidently say that Babylon's around for a long time prior to the GT. Look at the parenthical section in Rev 21:9+... nothing is said about the 1000 year reign of Christ on the Earth.
To say that there is a NJ reality before the old earth/heavens pass away is a deduction at best with no direct scriptural evidence. It's not wrong to make deductions, we make plenty :), but in this case I think it's pushing the envelope.
Contrast this to my interpretation of a NJ only being revealed in the new heavens and earth... it is the simplest and most literal interpretation of Revelations 21:1-8. Does it exclude the possibility of a NJ in the MK: no, not really. But I think it's a big stretch to place the NJ in the MK.
Let's look at the language of Rev 21 in 2 places:
Rev 21:2 - "The I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God..."
The phrase 'coming down' is the same greek word as descending used in Rev 21:10:
"And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high moutain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God..."
Now honestly... are you telling me the NJ descends twice? Once in the MK and then again in the NHE (new heavens and earth)?
Great summary of everything
Great summary of everything man!
In the way that 17-18 gives reference to Babylon being around before the GT, you could say that 21:24-27 and 22:5 gives similar evidence that the NJ is around somewhere during the MK.
I think the parallels between the two parenthetical sections are too great to ignore at least the possibility of the NJ being around during the MK. It also provides a good explanation for the healing virtues of the leaves of the tree of life (why would anything need healing when 1000 years of making things perfect has passed and the perfect has already come - it would essentially diminish the quality of the work of Jesus during the MK and basically say that He did not fully accomplish what the Father set Him to do - 1 Cor. 15:24-28) and brings some clarity to 21:26-27 and the existence of things causing abominations or lies on the earth (which do not occur after the MK).
I'm not clear on the "dual descent" issue, because, as you say, the passages are not clear on that.
I think the revealing of the NJ to the earth is a significant part of the rending of the veil between the natural and supernatural and the combination of the two realms (Eph. 1:10), and so to not have it involved during the MK somehow would seem odd to me. One of the major clues is that the city has real physical dimensions, not just spiritual ones (whatever a spiritual dimension is, heh).
We've got to conclude that there is at least a decent possibility of the NJ being around during the MK. There are just too many questions that are raised that you've got to back up scripturally if it is not around until the NHE.
Of course nobody has all the answers, but I personally think the case is stronger for it than weaker. So that's what I'm running with for now :)
(And I love all our TLA's, by the way... heh)
Josh
I'm happy with that..
Yeah sounds good to me... possibility exists, but we differ on it's likelihood.
Actually tomorrow I'll post my alternate theory as to where the saints will reside to try and reconcile some of the peripheral implications... see where that takes us.
I have a list of all of our abbreviations (for our spectators):
NJ - New Jerusalem
MK - Millennial Kingdom
GT - Great tribulation
GWTJ - Great White Throne of Judgement
NHE - New Heavens and Earth
MR - Millennial rebellion
God bless,
Wash
Nice...
Good one Josh... I'll check it out and post back!
Hey Wash, I'd love to hear
Hey Wash, I'd love to hear your theories!
Here's something else I'll throw in the mix for your consideration -
If we are the bride of Christ, and the bride is greatly beloved, and the bride is the city (21:9), what do you think the city in 20:9 is (the city in the MR that the wicked surround)?
The word John uses is "agapao" - which is only used this one time in Revelation. There's something special about the city being described in 20:9 that freely gives and freely receives the perfect love of the Father. I can't imagine buildings can do that, but the bride of Christ can :)
Josh
The time has come...
Let us look carefully at Rev 20:9:
"And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."
Now I draw your attention to the phrase: "... and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city..."
Do you notice the distinction between the 'camp of the saints' and the 'beloved city'? Why then would the saints need to be 'encamped' if they are living in the beloved city, which is according to your interpretation the NJ described in Rev 21:9+?
Now before you say that the beloved city is describing the camp of the saints... let me highlight that the word 'and' in Rev 20:9 is not in italics, it is the greek word 'kai'. The reason to highlight this is to emphasise that there is a distinction between 2 realities: 'camp of the saints' and the beloved city (Jerusalem)... which is natural Jerusalem where Jesus will have His earthly throne (as the heavenly throne in the NJ descends after the MK, MR and NHE).
This undescribed 'camp' where the saints reside is the answer to an earlier question you raised about some of the implications of a NJ-less MK.
The greek...
Ah, but Washo - the Greek is very important here. I'm glad you brought it up.
"kai" is not only used for "and", but can also be "even" - the "kai" following "parembolen" (camp, which actually can be in reference to a military barracks) is epexegetical, because "the beloved city" is further definition of the camp of the saints.
I'm saying this because it's clear that all of the saints cannot "fit" in the natural Jerusalem, being only about 10 square miles (4500 rods, Ezek. 48:30-35; 45:6; 48:15-19). So there has to be some level of interconnectedness between the earthly "beloved city" and the NJ.
I think that connection is the throne of Jesus, once again with two dimensions - a heavenly (Rev. 7:9,17; 22:3) and an earthly (Isaiah 24:23) - as a picture of the combination of the natural and supernatural realms.
Josh
Ah but Josh...
Yes I considered that 'and' and 'even' were interchangable after I posted, so I'm not surprised you picked up on that :) (well done)... so again, we're faced with a 50/50 chance of this scripture supporting either interpretation.
But I want to pick up on something you wrote about the natural Jerusalem, referencing the measurments used by Ezekiel. Those same passages of scripture go on to describe Ezekiel's temple in the natural Jerusalem... which is a problem because Rev 21:22 says that there will be no temple because God will dwell with them.
However let me predict your response.. you might say that there is a temple (Ezekiel's) on the natural Jerusalem but the NJ has no temple in keeping with Rev 21:22... which would supports your last statement about parallel natural/spiritual realms as a reality in the MK reminiscent of Jesus' throne(s).
So again I'm left with this conclusion... it doesn't directly say that the NJ is in the MK, but it doesn't directly say that it isn't present either.
For me, Rev 21:1-8 is compelling evidence enough for me to think that the NJ is a Limited Edition city that descends after the MK, MR, GWTJ and NHE. I believe it is the simplest and most literal interpretation of these scriptures. Having said that... these passages don't exclude the possibility of a NJ reality during the MK.
And to this I say: neither one of us can summon knockout scriptual evidence for either interpretation... it can be legitimately interpreted 50/50, there's room for it. I'm happy to ride on with this knowledge because I think we've gone back and forth in an exemplarily fashion with our scriptural exegesis without getting personal, emotional or bitter - as is unfortunately common with many end of the age discussions. In addition to this, we've spawned a whole series of End of the Age (EotA) abbreviations :)
I've personally thoroughly enjoyed it and I can't wait until we do it again over a passage of scripture just to see how much we can get out of it... though without opposing interpretations this time :)
I agree - this discussion
I agree - this discussion has been great. So many discussions I've had elsewhere have not been nearly as productive in actually examining the passages in question.
And you predicted my response pretty well :)
I'm unashamedly setting my hope as Abraham did and believing the NJ going to be there because it's part of my inheritance. And if God looks at me the same way as Abraham did in hoping for the city, I know I won't be disappointed with the outcome, whatever it is. But personally, I don't want to wait another thousand years to move into my home! :)
Josh
My blog
Hey Josh,
This has nothing to do with our discussion btw, but I've restarted my blog and I thought you might want to have a look. It's a cartoon web blog... nothing too serious:
The Bird and the Ant
Hope you find it funny :)
Post new comment