Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Revelation 21:1-5a

1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2And I John saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, “Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people[s], and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.” 5aAnd he that sat upon the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.”


EXEGESIS

This pericope is the first part of John’s vision of a New Heaven and New Earth (21:1–22:5), which in turn concludes John’s second set of visions, portents seen from an earthly perspective (12:1–22:5) as opposed to his first vision, which was seen from a heavenly vantage point (4:1–11:19). I have elected to include 5a, “And he that say upon the throne said, ‘Behold, I make all things new,’” with verses 1–4 because the repetition of “new” (kainon and kainēn in v.1 and kaina in v. 5a) creates a clear inclusio and because of the resonance with God’s verbal creation in Gen 1:1–31.

This passage is the first of two pericopes describing the new Jerusalem, the other being 21:9–22:5. Gaechter, who called the ordering of the final chapters of Revelation into question, linked these verses with 22:3–5 as a description of the eternal city and proposed that 21:9–22:2 signifies the spiritual Jerusalem (sc. the church) that coexists with this present world (see Ford, 38–39). While this position has been alluded to by Kevin and is amenable to progressive dispensationalists, it is by no means certain that two Jerusalems were, in fact, intended.

This passage, as with most of the visions in 12:1–22:5 constitutes a vision report, as distinct from the ascension that is the setting for those of 4:1–11:19. There is an emphasis on seeing and hearing, but in each case John sees and hears from a position outside of heaven (although in this last case technically not from an earthly vantage point, since the old earth and heaven had fled from God’s face in 20:11). The seer sees the holy city “coming down from heaven” and hears a voice “out of heaven.” One interpretive approach is that the first set of visions, received during John's ascent into the heavenly court, was received outside of time; he sees the Lamb’s role in unfolding history past, present, and future, whereas in the second set, he “experiences” them “on the ground” as they occur (although the timing is still open to interpretation).

Notes

I saw a new heaven and a new earth. In the first sentence there is an immediate echo of Genesis 1:1, “God created the heaven and earth.” The word “new” here is the Greek kainos, not neos. Whereas neos is consistently new in the sense of time, kainos, in additional to the temporal sense, can refer to newness in sense of quality and not just time (see Beale, 1040). The idea of a renewal of the earth was a common feature in apocalyptic literature as in 1 Enoch 45:4–5 (Mounce, 380). Exegetical links connect the passing of the old world the rise of the new directly to pattern of Christ’s resurrection (cf. 2 Cor 5:4–17; Col 1:15–18).

for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away. As noted, the old earth and heaven fled from the face of God when he sat upon the great white throne (20:11), much as man was driven out of the presence of God in Genesis 3:24. Whereas the verb in 20:11 is stronger (ephygen or “fled”), apēlthan in 21:1 does have more of the sense of “go away from” than the simple English “pass away.”

there was no more sea. While perhaps perplexing to modern readers, the lack of a sea in the new earth should be seen from an ancient, Near Eastern perspective, where it represented the roiling powers of chaos (cf. Tiamat, who was slain by Marduk, and from whose corpse the dry land was created, Mounce, 381; Beale, 1041–1047, 1050–1051). Hence the lack of a sea reflects the lack of any kind of Satanic or chaotic influence in the new creation. Consider also connections with Jesus’ stilling of the sea in the gospels.

And I John saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem. The earliest references to a new Jerusalem (outside of Ether 13!) seem to be Ezekiel 48:30–35 and Testament of Dan (Mounce, 381). “New” Jerusalem may have a connection with Isa 62:1–5, where Zion/Jerusalem is called by a new name and depicted as a bride (Beale, 1044).

Coming down from God out of heaven. Although the lexical parallels are not exact, references to Jesus being and coming “from above” (e.g., John 3:3, 31; 8:23) and the city’s coming down “out of heaven from God” (a more precise rendering of ek ouranou apo tou theou) does suggest a connection. T
he sense here may also refer to the source or quality of the new Jerusalem and not just the place of its spatial origin. Just as Christ came down from heaven, so too will the new Jerusalem. Indeed, elsewhere the heavenly Jerusalem always seems to be somewhere in heaven itself (e.g., Gal 4:26; Heb 12:22–23).

prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. Bridal imagery here connects the new Jerusalem both with the Old Testament covenant image of Israel as the spouse of YHWH and New Testament imagery of the Church as the Bride and Christ as the Bridegroom. Isaiah precedents for the city as bride are found in Isa 52:1–3 and 62. Within Revelation itself, the marriage of the Lamb is announced in 19:7–9, and the purity of the new wife appears in direct contrast with the Great Whore of Rev 17.

“Behold, I make all things new.” Just as God ended his creative work in Genesis 2:2 and then blessed it in 2:3 (implying that he spoke a final time), so the creation of the new heaven and earth is completed when he declares that he has “made” (poieō, interestingly present in Greek) all things new.

Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them. Tabernacle here is the Greek skēnē, simply “tent,” which the LXX used for the wilderness Tabernacle in which YHWH dwelt in the midst of his people. Despite being from different linguistic families, there it also seems to be closely related to the Hebrew shekinah, denoting the glory and presence of God (Mounce, 383). “He will dwell (skēnōsei) with them” resonates with John 1:13, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt (eskēnōsen) with us.” See also Ezekiel 37:27 and 43:7.

and they shall be his people[s], and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. A final fulfillment of the OT covenant promise (e.g., Lev 26:11–12; Jer 31:33; Ezek 37:27; Zech 8:8). Significantly, John modifies the promise to includes peoples (laoi) rather than people (laos), a distinction frequently made in modern translations but alas not in the KJV (Beale, 1047).

God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. The reversal of the effects of the fall, realized to some extent with the Millennium of chapter 20, is a fulfillment of promises such as those in Isa 25:8, 35:10. It was promised in Rev 7:16–17.

he that sat upon the throne said. The throne where God sits has been mentioned throughout Revelation but mostly in the portion chronicling John’s ascent (4:2, 9; 5:1, 7; 6:16; 7:10, 15 as opposed to 19:14 and here at 20:4). God’s reticence in the apocalypse is noteworthy; other than here at 21:5, he speaks at 1:8 (although this requires some exegetical efforts for Latter-day Saints) and perhaps at 16:1 and 17 as well (Mounce, 384 n. 23).

“Behold, I make all things new.” Just as God ended his creative work in Genesis 2:2 and then blessed it in 2:3 (implying that he spoke a final time), so the creation of the new heaven and earth is completed when he declares that he has “made” all things new. Interestingly, as noted the verb poieō is actually present tense in Greek, perhaps suggesting that God is in the process of making things new here and now (see Meztger, 99, supporting an Idealist and Progressive Dispensationalist approach).


Interpreted broadly and without yet subscribing to a particular expositional approach, this pericope illustrates that with God’s final victory the earth and heavens are either remade or renewed; the forces of chaos and evil are henceforth absent; the righteous dwell with God in a holy community, perhaps an actual city; and God's presence effects the end of pain, death, and suffering. Indeed, the separation from God that brought these factors into human experience at last comes to an end, with the final chapters of Revelation forming an appropriate pendant to the opening chapters of Genesis in the current canonical order.


EXPOSITION

Standard approaches interpret this pericope literally, spiritually, or symbolically. Many futurists, especially classical dispensationalists, tend to interpret this and the succeeding description of the New Jerusalem very literally. “Spiritual” approaches apply the description of the New Jerusalem to the new, spiritual creation found in the Church, in which is found the real presence of God. Symbolic interpretations see the new earth and the New Jerusalem not so much as a real place on a new earth but as a fantastic description of the final heavenly state of glorified saints.

LDS exposition of “a new heaven and a new earth” tends to be literal but informed and shaped by the idea that just as a man is baptized by water, then by fire, and finally dies and is resurrected, so shall the earth itself. Hence the flood represents water baptism (whether total or token is debated; see White and Thomas, Dialogue 40.3 [Fall 2007]); the cleansing of the earth by fire at a premillennial appearance of Jesus represents the sanctification attendant upon the baptism of the Holy Ghost (see D&C 29:23–25; 88:18–19; also McConkie, 580 and passim; Draper, 227–228); the "fleeing" of the earth from God's face in Rev 20:11 represents it death; and the new earth represents its resurrection.

But while LDS interpretation of the concept of a New Jerusalem is often literal, the discussion of multiple Jerusalems in Ether 13—whether yet to be built in the Old World, later to be built in the New, or coming down from heaven as here (for all of which, see again McConkie, 580–581)—actually suggests that the LDS approach ought to be polyvalent. Saints in every age labor to build a holy community. Sometimes they succeed (Enoch’s Zion, Melchizedek’s Salem), sometimes they fail (Jewish Jerusalem, Mormon Missouri), and often they toil on with the goal still on the horizon. In these instances a Spiritual approach is appropriate, because a spiritual community is trying to realize heaven on earth in this fallen sphere. Further, an LDS literal interpretation is also a symbolic one, inasmuch as the celestialized earth indeed becomes “heaven” for its inhabitants.

In this sense the progressive dispensationalist approach, which allows for both a futurist and symbolic interpretation for some of the same images, ought to be welcome to LDS students of this passage. While we look forward not just to Christ’s return at the onset of the Millennium but to God’s return at its end, we continue to labor to create heaven here and now, recognizing that our efforts to build Zion will in fact bring us to the point when our Millennial Zion, Enoch’s Zion, and finally God’s Zion all become one: “The Lord hath redeemed his people; And Satan is bound and time is no longer. The Lord hath gathered all things in one. The Lord hath brought down Zion from above. The Lord hath brought Zion from beneath.” (D&C 88:100; cf. Moses 7:63).

4 comments:

  1. This is a wonderful post, thank you.

    I really like the way in which you have brought Ether 13 into the discussion.

    You write, "God’s reticence in the apocalypse is noteworthy; other than here at 21:5, he speaks at 1:8 . . .."

    And both v5-6 here and 1:18 contain "alpha and omega," making a nice little bookend--both literally and metaphorically.

    A few general comments:

    "And he that sat upon the throne said"

    I find it interesting how rarely Rev. names deity. (Or, as noted above, has deity speak.) I suspect this is tied into the -visual- nature of the revelation, although I'm having a hard time articulating it.

    As a general question, I'm curious what this pericope can teach us about the creation and what the creation (in Gen 1-3) can teach us about this pericope.

    "The old earth and heaven fled from the face of God when he sat upon the great white throne (20:11), much as man was driven out of the presence of God in Genesis 3:24." touches on this question, but raises more questions: In what ways is the earth like Adam? (Of course, the language in Gen 1-3 makes the connection itself very clear.) Has the earth itself transgressed? If Adam will be made new in the same way that the earth will be, then what does the description of the earth that comes next in Rev. teach us about Adam? What does the "no more sea" in this vision imply about the work during the creation of separating the water and the dry land?

    Another thought: throughout Genesis, cities are consistently and emphatically seen as negative. Is that viewpoint redeemed in this pericope?

    (How) does the language about the bride adorned for her husband relate to the Adam/Eve story as found in Genesis?

    "Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them." This, of course, is a perfect inversion of the Fall, where Adam and Eve could no longer be in God's presence. I find it curious at this point that a "new creation" is required in order for them (i.e., God and Adam/Eve) to be re-united. Why couldn't they (symbolically) dwell together in the old creation?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've been away at the annual conference of the Mormon History Association and just got back today.

    When I read over this passage and Eric's post, I had a perhaps unusual thought. Is it possible that the tabernacle of v. 3 (skEnE) is the body of God, "tabernacle of God" being an epexegetic genitive?

    The reason I ask is that I immediately thought of the passage Eric crossreferences, John 1:13, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt [verbal cognate to skEnE] with us." There the Word takes on flesh as though the flesh were a tent covering his spirit; the implicit tent of the passage is referring to his physical body.

    Also, throughout our passage there is an idea that there doesn't need to be a temple, because God will already be dwelling among the people. We see this at the end of v. 3 ("God *himself* shall be with them"). The concept is made really explicit in v. 22:

    And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

    So am I reaching here, or is this a possibility?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I would probably call it an objective genitive, "the covering/tenting of God" rather than an epexegetical (tent = God; see Wallace, 95-96; no BDF equivalent). Grammatical definitions notwithstanding, I think Kevin's point is right on. We tend to think of temples as houses of God (subjective or possessive genitive), but they stand for some greater existential possibility, that God dwells among his people. In addition to the John 1:13 echo, I thought about (but failed to put in the exegesis) the clear resonance with Matt 1:23 = Isa 7:14 LXX, Immanuel = God with us.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Excellent post, Eric.

    I also appreciated the initial post giving us a rundown of the various interpretive approaches. Of the approaches mentioned, I think that you're likely right to favor the progressive dispensationalist approach.

    Julie has raised a host of questions about the intertextual connections between these verses and Genesis 1-3 that, I think, will be very promising to pursue - though I'll leave those, for now, to Julie :)

    And I think that Kevin and Eric have very helpfully emphasized the need to juxtapose John's account of the incarnation with this account of God "dwelling" among us in his "tent/tabernacle."

    I'll try, in short order, to offer some additional comments of my own in a separate post.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.