Revelation 3.12 The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.

Revelation 21.1-2 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Revelation 21.10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God.

Here, John describes the city New Jerusalem, consistently describing it as coming from heaven. To earth, I would assume. [1]

Galatians 4.22-26 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

Here, Paul takes the historical account of Hagar and Sarah, and presents it as an allegory, in which Hagar represents the "present Jerusalem", and Sarah represents "the Jerusalem above".

Based on the context of the Galatians passage, Paul states "this present Jerusalem" as being "in slavery with her children". But he contrasts this with "the Jerusalem above", which "is free". Contextually, I think it's very clear he is contrasting the Old Covenant ("this present Jerusalem", which, indeed, was still "in slavery with her children", clinging to the Old Covenant) against the New Covenant ("the Jerusalem above").

John and Paul received their prophetic knowledge from the same source (God), so it seems reasonable to me that "the New Jerusalem" is the same thing as "the Jerusalem above".

Hebrews 11.16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.

It is not known for certain who wrote Hebrews, but its writing and verbal mannerisms have been considered to be "Pauline" in style. Here the author speaks of Christ's followers desiring "a heavenly" home, and goes on to describe how God "has prepared for them a city". This is very close in essence to the statements found in the Revelation verses above, in which John repeatedly states that the New Jerusalem was "coming down out of heaven from God". Paul's statement in Galatians, then, is bridged by this verse in Hebrews to John's statements in the Revelation.

I posit, then, that Paul and John are referring to the same city (I'll go ahead and just call it "New Jerusalem", since it distinguishes it from the earthly city), as is the author of Hebrews. But my main point comes next.

Hebrews 12.22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering...

Here, in Hebrews 12.22, the author directly states that his contemporary followers of Christ "have come" already "to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem". John depicts the New Jerusalem, as coming from out of heaven from God (i.e., it comes from "above"). Would this not mean that John's "New Jerusalem" was a present reality for the first-century author of Hebrews, when he said "you have come to ... the heavenly Jerusalem", if indeed "Jerusalem above", "the heavenly Jerusalem", and "the New Jerusalem" are the same thing?

I cross-posted this topic on another forum, but since it is adamantly anti-[full] Preterist, I had to finish at this point, and only asked others a few questions on what they thought. However, since we are free here, I'll go ahead and put my full thoughts in.

To me, it seems abundantly clear that Scripture teaches that the New Jerusalem (Jerusalem above, the heavenly Jerusalem), which John states is a part of the new heavens and new earth, was already becoming a present reality for the first-century Christians, near the end of the "this generation" that Christ prophesied about. The author of Hebrews directly says that his contemporaries "have come" to "the heavenly Jerusalem". Young's Literal translates it as "you came", but the other 17 versions I have have a consensus of "you have come". Regardless, both cases place the event in the first century. This would necessarily mean that the New Jerusalem is not so absolutely literal as many claim, and Revelation 21-22 was already on its way to fulfillment in the first century, not some future fulfillment.

Views: 19


You need to be a member of Sovereign Grace Preterism to add comments!

Join Sovereign Grace Preterism

Comment by Derrell on April 28, 2009 at 2:01pm
GK, you said................"The Church is now scattered out over 2000 years of history, and we each have to enter at our own appointed time, and some of us have a lot of baggage we have collected along the way!"

Are you saying there are members of the church in the last 2000 years who have died, that have yet to enter the promise land?
Are you saying, when we die (those christians who are currently physically living), we will then enter the promise land?

or are you saying.................when i get rid of all my baggage, I can enter the promise land?

Or are you saying Moses isnt in the promise land today because he was told he couldnt enter?

Comment by Ron on April 26, 2009 at 10:53am
Some might say the prophesy is not saying anything that has not been said before in scripture, so how is that prophesy? Again that is the point, prophesy would not be saying anything that has not been said before. Prophesy does not have to be novel, but edifying to the Church!

GK: In other words, prophecy today is a matter of a believer participating in the MIND of the Lord through the Spirit that is communicating towards helping the hand care for the foot of the body. To this I heartily agree.
Comment by Derrell on April 25, 2009 at 11:45pm
GK, do you think you may be reading to much into the typology, ? I just looked up every occurance of Promised Land in the NT and it only appears 1 time as you have rightly written in your thread above. It seems Hebrews was making clear that what was seen at a distance to the OT saints was now comming to pass before the first century beileivers eyes? isnt that type/anti-type, WHAT ELSE IS THERE?

You said..........." There were definite prophesies regarding the entry of the people into the promised land", how their lives were going to be, to the dividing up of the land and setting boundaries. How does this speak to us today?

isnt this what the NT writers did when they penned their words in the text of scripture?
1. Entry of the people======By faith
2. How their lives were going to be=========love joy peace in the Holy Spirit,not more tears, sorrow, pain
3. In the land=========In Christ
4. boundries==========And he told me to go mearsure the city

Thats is why I asked in my origional post......................What prophecy according to scripture is left gk?

I Love exploring the thoughts and pressupositions of others, but we have to explore them using text and not just presuppositions.

Comment by HeidiS on April 25, 2009 at 11:36pm
In Hebrews, they had come to it/ but not yet entered (symbolically speaking of course)


I went back and found the post on page one you were speaking of in your last post (I hadn't noticed it before). Yes, we definately agree (I guess what I was hoping to see is if Mark or anyone else had looked to see the meaning of the words, context and tenses? After all, this is what gets "lost in translation".

Talk to you later and good night,
Comment by Derrell on April 25, 2009 at 11:26pm
Heidis, I thought I posted someting on page 1 of this thread very similiar if not identical to your post, but like yours, mine didnt get a response either.

Comment by HeidiS on April 25, 2009 at 11:17pm
You are spot on with your post

Derrell, Thanks for your comment. Wasn't sure if anyone even saw what I wrote.

Mark, the verdict is still out on your response too.
Comment by Derrell on April 25, 2009 at 11:10pm
gk, before I can go any further examining your post, It would help me to undertand you better if you were to define the term Promise Land. And pleae give me the NT verse by which you are using the termPromise Land in the context of your remarks. Thanks

Comment by Derrell on April 25, 2009 at 11:06pm

You are spot on with your post.

Comment by Jordan Grant on April 25, 2009 at 11:03pm
Yes David, you're right. I'm probably causing a lot of SGP'ers to think I'm some kind of crazy Sharia-law-following terrorist. Alas, I shall now sink into my couch with a glass of merlot and watch "Ronin" (you know, to get good espionage tips!) :-)
Comment by HeidiS on April 25, 2009 at 10:52pm
In the middle of this cat fight (on page 3 of this post) I sent a comment about Heb 12:22. It only has to do with your question about this verse. I'm interested to see what you think or if it helped with your question.


© 2016   Created by Michael Bennett.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service