Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Overview – This pericope ties the imagery of the holy city directly to the Garden of Eden. The water of life reminds the reader of the river proceeding “out of Eden to water the garden" (Gen 2:10-14). The water in the holy city waters the tree of life, just as the river in Eden watered the garden, in which was found the first tree of life. Finally, explicit reference to the “curse” (katathema – Gr.) is made. As Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden, God had placed a “curse” (arur – Heb.) upon the ground, that it would bring forth thorns and thistles. The world became a wilderness and the effects of this curse were mentioned with regularity by biblical authors and prophets. When the people returned to God, prophets promised a reversal of the effects of the curse, and promises were made that in the last days the land would return to its Edenic, pre-curse state. Instead of the land making life more difficult for the descendants of Adam and Eve, it could support them and even heal them, as with the leaves of the tree of life (vs. 2).
A good example of this curse reversal is found in Isaiah 55:7-13 – “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon… Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir tree, and instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle tree: and it shall be to the Lord for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.” Another example of curse reversal shows how water could heal a dry wilderness. This example is found in connection with a reversal of the difficulty of child birth that came to Eve as a result of the fall – “Thus saith the Lord…. Fear not, O Jacob, my servant…. For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring: And they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the water courses" (Is 44:2-4).
In these verses from Revelation, the curse has truly been reversed. The sorrows and pains promised to Eve (Gen 3:16) are taken away as “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 done away. (21:4)” The “former things” have been reversed as well in the ability of the ground to bring forth life without the toil and sweat of man, as with the tree of life found in the midst of the city.
Verse 1 – and he showed me This section begins with a reminder that there is an angelic tour guide for John’s vision of the holy city. This is the third time that the angel, who was one of the seven angels holding the seven vials of plagues (21:9), has been mentioned. As discussed earlier, Nephi is also guided in his vision by an angel who constantly points out different items of import (compare the angel’s commands to “Look!” in 1 Ne 11 with “And he shewed me” of Rev 22). Ezekiel also had an angelic guide in his vision of a temple that had many characteristics in common with the holy city of Revelation – flowing water, specific measurements, etc. What is the importance of the heavenly guide? Does his presence signify that the nature of the city is far above that of a temporal city and is not the type of location that could be accessed by an earthly explorer? Does his presence indicate that God has authorized this vision, or that God wants to make sure that the vision is viewed and understood correctly? If the holy city symbolizes a return to the paradise of Eden, then the angel might be considered necessary. Since cherubim were placed to guard the way to the tree of life, as a result of the curse on Adam and Eve, then theoretically an angel would be required to permit access back to the tree of life.
Verses 1 & 2 – water of life (vs. 1); tree of life (vs. 2) The images of nature, life, and motion represented by the water of life and the tree of life soften the angular, brilliant beauty of the perfectly-proportioned city. This is a city that can be lived in. It is not just a perfected, modern, cement-city devoid of any evidences of God’s creation, but instead contains central reminders of the creation and the Garden of Eden story. The water flows from the throne of God, much like water flows from the temple in Ezekiel’s vision (Ez 47:1). There has been quite a bit of excellent discussion about whether the image of Rev 21-22 is anti-temple, since it replaces the Old Testament version of the temple as a central source of communal life with God and the Lamb as the central source of life. The author of Revelation purposefully connected the images of his vision with those of Ezekiel’s temple vision (Ezekiel 40-48). To me it seems that he did this not to discount or discredit the earlier, temple-centered vision, but to show the perfect realization and triumph of the symbolic truths offered by the temple – that God can dwell in the midst of his people and that the chaos of a fallen world can be conquered by the order and beauty of the heavens.
Verse 1 – clear as crystal Enough comments have been offered already on the “clear” color and quality of the gold of the holy city. This recurring quality, connected now with the waters of life, reveals it as a very important image for the author. Could the clearness symbolize clarity, sight, and even clairvoyance (a power required if one is to have a vision of heavenly things)? The LDS reader might be reminded of the opposite imagery in Lehi’s vision of the fountain of water that ran near to the tree of life. In Lehi’s/Nephi’s vision, the waters were “filthy” (1 Ne 12:16), were repugnant to Nephi, and symbolized the depths of hell. Nephi’s later love of simplicity and clarity might have some connection to the repugnance of these hellish waters, as might his focus on the importance of the sanctifying waters of baptism (2 Ne 31:4-6). It is interesting that when discussing the importance of entering into the waters of baptism he referred back to images he had seen in his pivotal vision.
Verse 2 – in the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, the tree of life Like the pearls/gates of Rev 21:21, this is a difficult image for me to mentally solidify. The tree is in the middle of the street (also from 21:21). It is also on either side of the river, but it is seems to be one tree (xulon) in the singular (in contrast to the connected image from Ez 47:12, that has many trees growing on both sides of the river, with fruit that lasts through the seasons and leaves that are for medicine). The tree of Rev 22:2 appears to be in more places than is physically possible. Does the river run down both sides of the road, and a gigantic tree (picture redwood forests, but bigger) span them all? Does the road follow along both sides of the river and the tree spans the river, but not the road, thus standing in the middle of the road? Does the road cross the river as a bridge, with the river running through the middle of the tree (so that the tree can be on either side of the river) and the bridge splitting in two so that the tree can be in its center? Does the tree send out shoots, so that there are numerous trees that are only one tree? This type of concrete solidifying of the vision appears to be almost impossible, and may be exactly what the description was designed to prevent. The tree is almost ubiquitous, and becomes a dominant image in the city. It is also connected with the image of the street/way and the water of life in a way that emphasizes their interdependence. I am reminded of the famous verse from John 14:6, when Christ describes himself as “the way, the truth, and they life.” He is all of these things at the same time, and the life-giving tree, the street that guides to God and the Lamb and its center, and the renewing river of water all symbolize together the multi-faceted joys and glories of celestial redemption and eternal life with God. These three images could also be seen as symbolic manifestations or descriptions of God and the Lamb, who stand at the center of the city. Either from an LDS viewpoint, or from the perspective of traditional Christianity, these three images would be a beautiful way to describe the unity and uniqueness of each member of the Godhead.
Verse 2 – twelve fruits… and the leaves of the tree for the healing of the nations The number “twelve” is emphasized again here. This time a new connection to the repeating cycle of twelve months is given, in addition to the previous connections with the tribes of Israel and the apostles of the Lamb. Are Israel and the apostles (the destinies of God’s Old and New Testament organizations?) to be woven inextricably into the eternal cycle of time? It is somewhat surprising that months and time are even alluded to in a heavenly city where the light of God’s glory never sets. However, mentioning months and the constant flowering of the tree can serve as a reminder that there is a new order of things now -- the ongoing progression of months doesn’t lead to winter and death, but instead the tree continues producing fruit throughout the year.
The image of the tree of life is a persistent one in many world religions, and also becomes important in the story of the Book of Mormon. How does this tree of life in the holy city compare to the tree of life in the Garden of Eden, that had to be guarded by cherubim? How does it compare to the burning bush of Moses’ vision, with God in the midst of the bush? How does it compare to the tree of life in Lehi’s/Nephi’s dream/vision, that people approached after considerable effort, that produced a fruit “desirable above all other fruits,” and that people could abandon even after having partaken of its fruit? How does it compare to the tree of Alma 32, that grows within an individual after the planting and nourishing of a seed, and that also produces fruit in the end? There is a lot of room for “fruitful” discussion, I believe, in analyzing the similarities and differences in these different manifestations of the tree of life.
Verse 3 – the throne of God At the focal point of the tabernacle was found the ark of the covenant, also known as the mercy seat, symbolizing God’s presence. Inside of the mercy seat were found stone tablets containing the law of Moses, Aaron’s rod that had miraculously bloomed, and manna from the trek through the wilderness. These objects teach what the presence of God does, since it was His power and presence that allowed them to come among the children of Israel. God provides law and order in the midst of chaos, as symbolized by the stone tablets. He provides new life, even on a rod that could not possibly bloom any longer. He provides food in the midst of the wilderness. Even so the throne of God in the holy city is found to give evidence that the curse has been done away with. God provides order (as the symbol of a kingly throne demonstrates), food (from the tree of life), and life (from the flowing waters).
Monday, June 22, 2009
The phrase "of them which are saved" is not in the best ancient manuscripts. My guess is that that phrase was added by someone used to the biblical idea that "the nations" means "people who are not part of the covenant" and therefore found this verse in need of some explanation. Yet without that phrase, there is some nice poetic parallelism in this verse:
And the nations / shall walk / in the light of it
And the kings of the earth / do bring their glory and honor / into it.
Both nations and earthly kings are usual enemies of the covenant people, but the reversal of this new city is so complete that these groups live by its light and, instead of hoarding glory to themselves, empty out their glory into the city. There is no more opposition; the usual opponents are now on the side of the righteous. I think it is more effective to take this verse as a symbolic indication of complete reversal of expected human behavior--applicable to all aspects of life--than to read it as solely political and literal.
Do we understand the kings to be actually entering into the city? Is the light of the city extending outside of the city (for the nations to walk in)? Or are the nations in the city? If the nations and/or kings are in the city, this is an even more challenging verse for the biblical worldview.
25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.
(This may impinge on our discussion of the pearl gates: they are something that can be closed, but in reality they never are.)
"By day" means "any day." In other words, the city is under no threat from the outside that would necessitate closing the gates. (Even with all of those kings and nations loitering around the place!) (This verse also pictures the fulfillment of Isaiah 60:11). And nighttime, the usual time of threat and attack, doesn't even exist! The light is so great that the night has no sway. This verse emphasizes the light without even mentioning it.
26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.
This is a curious verse with its echo of the end of v24. Literarily, it works quite well since the city of v25 is literally surrounded in v24 and v26 with references to entry into it. There's also a bit of a chiasm formed:
A And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it:
B and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
C And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day:
C' for there shall be no night there.
B' And they shall bring the glory and honour
A' of the nations into it.
If we read it this way, then the repetition from v24 to v26 serves to emphasize the parallelism between the two phrases of v24 and encourages us to reconsider what "and the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day" has to do with "for there shall be no night there." Those two phrases have a nice bit of antithetic parallelism due to the references to "night" and "day." There is something about that line, however, that I can't quite get my mind around: why does the absence of night explain why the gates are not closed during the day?
27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
No unclean person enters, and yet the gates are never closed. They are not physically restrained.
The second phrase doesn't make reference to those who are clean or pure, as we might expect in an antithetical verse such as this one, but rather to those whose names are written. Having your name written is the opposite of being defiled. Perhaps this points to the idea that we do not make ourselves clean, but it is only through the mediating action of the Lamb. And what of the book? Why would writing names in a book be a good metaphor for his atoning actions?
We've had several threads of text related to the idea of writing . . . perhaps someone should weave those into a paper.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
"And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass."
The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery notes regarding pearls that they were known for their “beauty, value, and permanence.”
It also, notes, however, that the lavishness of pearls is often associated with the ungodly. Compare, for instance, Revelation 18:12 where the whore of Babylon is characterized as trafficking in “the merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls.” In this latter connection, the use of such jewelry as kind of “cover” for one’s insufficiency is obvious, the pearl functioning as an “shiny” distraction from the poor substance of that which it bedecks. Also, the pearl, for the whore, is an object of commerce: its value allows for the circulation of Babylonian power throughout the commercial body of its empire.
In these verses, though, the pearl has been recouped. To what end? Primarily to my mystification as to the precise image being proposed :)
Each of the twelve gates are twelve pearls.
Are these giant, seven-foot-round pearls?
By gate do we simply mean an entrance way through the wall (with a pearl framing for the negative space)? Or are we talking about a gate as a door that can swing open and shut? Is a seven-foot-round pearl here placed on hinges? Maybe we are talking about the gate being made from a “slice” or portion of such a pearl?
I honestly don’t know.
It is interesting, though, to note the way that such pearls (if they are seven-foot round pearls) would devalue the whore’s pearls as merchandise or currency. “Pearls, you foolish whore, are for gates! Don't sell your soul for them!”
Here, in the new city, all such things are rendered “price-less” (or, even, as a result, “worth-less”). Without an assignable value, without the value-pumping assistance of scarcity as a controlled, trafficked, and hoarded resource, the pearl simply shines as what it is: something beautiful, hard, and shiny. Use it as a gate, if you want.
Further, Julie has already raised the issue of “transparent” gold, but it is additionally interesting in this verse that “the street of the city is pure gold.” Note that “street” is here singular rather than plural: “the [one?] street of the city is pure gold."
Why just singular here? Because there is only one “way,” one “truth,” one “life”? Because there is only one place worth going in the city: straight into the presence of God? And this is the road that will take you there?
"And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it."
The New Interpreter’s Bible notes that “the absence of a temple in the New Jerusalem reflects the triumph of a persistent critical attitude toward temple worship” (725). It then recounts how, from the start, the temple was compromised by Israel’s susceptibility to various local forms of cultic worship such that the temple cult was, from its inception, contaminated by “foreign” influences. This ambivalence toward the temple was also coupled with a deep prophetic ambivalence toward the monarchy itself.
The NIB also notes that, in a similar fashion, in Jesus’ day, the temple could remain functional only through collusion with the Roman occupation. The temple, rather than being the “pristine” seat of God’s presence, pure of any external defilement, ends up implicating – in its very stones - the powers and problems and defilements of this world. Thus, its absence from the New Jerusalem may mark a definitive end to this bastardization of true worship.
In this same spirit, Karl Barth contrasts the temple with the tabernacle: “the church of the Bible is, significantly, the Tabernacle, the portable tent. The moment it becomes a Temple, it becomes essentially an object of attack” (NIB, 726). Here, the universal “portability” of God’s presence is contrasted with the controlled localization of God’s presence under the banner of a single nation, a single city, and an exclusive ruling power. God’s "temple" is properly a tabernacle, a “moveable feast” that is capable of coming to the orphan and the widow.
Also of interest, here, is the claim that God and the Lamb are the temple of the new city. Does this simply mark the collapse of a symbolic distance: the temple was meant to symbolically re-present the presence of God but, in light of God’s actual presence, the re-presentation of this symbol is subsumed?
Also, is it significant that God and the Lamb are the temple? The one (single) temple is constructed on the basis of a relationship, on the basis of a “sealed” plurality? Could God alone be his own temple? Could the Lamb alone be his own temple? Or, properly speaking, must the temple be God and the Lamb? The temple hinging on the vitality of this “and”?
If so, this may give us a way to think about the connection of this image with our contemporary conception of temples. For Mormons, the temple is essentially a complex apparatus of conjunction: its purpose is to gather and seal, gather and seal, Adam and Eve and Abel and Seth and . . . and . . . and. . .
Is the contemporary temple more like a tabernacle than the temple in Jerusalem? Is there a sense in which our temples are “portable,” wandering the earth, dotting the face of the whole planet, spreading out into every corner of the globe? Do our temples function as machines for de-centralizing the church and re-distributing sacrality away from one particular place and one particular people and into the local lives of whatever people need to be conjoined, privileging always the conjunction itself as the site of holiness?
"And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof."
A fantastic image. Note that the passage does not say that the sun and moon have “gone away” but that the city doesn’t need them. The light of the sun, in the presence of God, is swallowed up like the light from a light bulb with the arrival of the noonday sun?
Also, should we take the two final phrases as synonymous? The glory of God lightening the city = the Lamb being the light of it? Or does the second phrase qualify and articulate the nature of God’s glory: the glory of God that lightens the city is the Lamb? Here, again, foregrounding the importance of the “and” that conjoins God and the Lamb: God’s glory is (not his own) but (the other,) the Lamb?
Monday, June 8, 2009
The wall suggests a clear demarcation between those who are in and those who are out. Scholars note that the revelation is extremely low on imperatives and yet despite this a strongly moralistic view of the world undergirds it: there will be those within the heavenly city, and those outside of it.
What does it mean to say that the wall was jasper? In Rev 4:3, we find that the person on the throne is "like a jasper." So what does the person on the throne and the wall have in common? Perhaps we are seeing a symbolic representation of Jesus' "I am with you alway[s], even unto the end of the world" (Mt 28:20, which is even more interesting in Greek where the "with you" interrupts the "I am" in a striking example of form following function.)
When the holy city descends in 21:11, the light is described as being like a jasper stone. So the one on the throne, the light emanating from the city, and the wall of the city--not to mention one of the foundations of the city (see v19, where jasper gets pride of place as the first foundation)--are all associated with the jasper stone. The point seems to be to suggest a unity between these elements. Unpacking that a little, I would conclude that the city itself is meant to be identified with the one on the throne and that whatever light it has comes from him.
pure and clear
The same Greek word, katharos, is used to describe the gold and the glass, even though the KJV chose to translate it once as "pure" and once as "clear." While the semantic range of katharos covers both pure and clear (as well as clean), it strikes me as suspect to translate the same word two different ways in the same sentence. One could have translated it as:
The city was clear gold, like clear glass.
The city was pure gold, like pure glass.
And yet both of those would raise their own questions. For the first option, what would it mean to say that gold is clear? For the second, what would it mean to say that the pure gold was like pure glass? (Does this not also imply that it is clear?) Why has the gold lost its opaqueness and become transparent (a word that some translations use here)? If the entire city is transparent, what does that say about life in the city? What might this symbolize?
19 And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald; 20 The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst.
Note that the gems appear to correspond generally to the gems in the high priest's breastplate. (See Exodus 28:17-20; John's list omits four from Exodus and adds four others from the LXX; the order is also different, but the four that have been swapped out appear to be "semantic equivalents" NIGTC, page 1080). The point seems to be that the very foundations of the city are (or: are decorated with) the breastplate of the high priest. What were the functions of the high priest's breastplate? In what ways would the foundation of the new Jerusalem serve those same purposes? It is very difficult, in an LDS context, to avoid the conclusion that in a general sense, the foundation stones of the city are symbols of priesthood authority/power. Exodus 39:8-14 suggests that the breastplate formed a pouch containing the Urim and Thummim, which then would suggest that the entire city here is the (a?) Urim and Thummim. What would that symbolize for the city's residents?
Thursday, June 4, 2009
'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.'
In general, I am especially interested in the problem of what it means for something to be “new.” The first clue to what the newness (kainon/kainen) amounts to in these verses comes in the second clause.
Why are the heaven and earth new? Because: (1) the first heaven and the first earth have passed away, and (2) the sea is no more.
Here, novelty arises in connection with the passing away of what came first. Novelty is a question of succession: a movement from the first thing to the next thing. But this is not succession by way of addition (as when 2 succeeds 1 and then incorporates 1 into itself). Rather, this succession is what follows in light of the first thing “having passed away.” The novelty arises as the result of a dissolution (at least in part) rather than a subsumption of its precedent.
Further, it's useful to describe this passing away as a "passing away in part” because some strong continuity is also implied: though they are “new,” we are still talking about things that are recognizably heaven and recognizably earth.
Also, we learn something about the way in which the heaven and earth are new: they are new in that the sea (as Eric noted: “the sea = the liquid formlessness of chaos”) is no more. This, then, is a kind of novelty initiated by cessation or subtraction:
(heaven/earth) – (the sea) = (new heaven/earth)
We might, then, venture the following reading as an opening possibility: (1) the newness of the heaven and earth follows from the “passing away” of the first heaven and earth, and (2) the first heaven and earth pass away when liquid chaos has been subtracted from them.
Novelty as succession by way of subtraction.
It’s also worth noting in this verse that both the heaven and the earth are new – not just the earth. The new Jerusalem is going to come out of heaven, but this heaven is itself described as having been made new.
We don’t, then, have an image of straightforward imposition: it is not as if the heavens were perfect, the earth was corrupt, and then the earth is made new by the heavens imposing their transcendent perfection on the earth’s immanent corruption.
Rather, both heaven and earth are made new via a subtraction of chaos and then a novel link is forged between the two by the descent of the new Jerusalem from heaven.
'And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.'
If we understand the “holy city” to be the model of a perfected sociality, then it is striking that this sociality is depicted as a “coming down” from heaven. Perhaps we could say: the model for a perfected sociality is the universality of kenosis (or self-emptying condescension) not simply as a “one-time” necessity but as a perpetual/permanent movement of self-divestment.
Insofar as heaven is identified as the origin of this sociality, then we might also view this as the defining feature of heaven: heaven = a perfected sociality.
Also, the city comes down “from God” – which is to say that it is a gift with an assignable giver.
'And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “See the tabernacle of God is among humans. He will tabernacle with them; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them [as] their God.”'
Are we meant to identify the tabernacle with the city itself? Or as part of the city? We are told later (v22) that the city will have no temple in it because God himself will be its temple.
Key prepositions: God is among mortals and he tabernacles with them.
These prepositions characterize the kind of sociality that will prevail in the new city: in this holy city (i.e., in this city that is itself set apart or separated out), God will not be set apart or separated out from his people. He will be among and with us.
Also, note the co-belonging that characterizes this possessive sociality: we will be his, but he will also be ours. This co-belonging is appropriate to the structure of a symmetrical kenosis.
'He will wipe away every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more. Mourning and crying and pain will be no more, for the first things have passed away.'
Interesting to note that, again, the novelty of the city is described by way of subtraction. The “first things” will have passed away because they will have subtracted from them tears, death, mourning, crying, and pain.
We should, though, as Mormons, be cautious about how we characterize the end of such suffering. It may be better to speak of their transfiguration rather than their cessation. As Mormons, we believe that even God, a resurrected and glorified personage, continues to weep for the suffering of his children (cf. Moses 7:28).
This is consonant as well with the character of the city as symmetrically kenotic: what brings an end to tears is not necessarily that we each stop crying but that we each wipe each other’s tears away. In this sense (and for a number of additional reasons), I’d prefer to speak of a transfiguration of suffering rather than its cessation. In this new city, something gets subtracted from death and suffering (perhaps we could say: its “sting”?) that doesn’t simply eliminate it (as in Satan’s plan) but transfigures it.
'And the one who was seated on the throne said, “See, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this, for these words are trustworthy and true.”'
First, as others have noted, I like that the NRSV renders the first declaration as an ongoing present tense action: “I am making all things new.”
Also, it’s worth pointing out that the old things are not here described as being replaced by new things; rather, the old things are described as being made into new things. Some operation (generally described thus far as a kind of glorifying subtraction) is re-fashioning them into something new. And, further, the claim is not that some of the old things are being made new, but that all of the old things are being made new!
Finally, as Julie noted, we might ascribe some significance to the contiguity of the declaration that all things are being made new and the commandment to write. Writing, as process of inscription and re-inscription, is a process of repeating with a difference, a process that necessarily makes something (at least in part) new. For instance, my own work on these verse for the past few hours has, in fact, made them new for me. And, in turn, their newness has made me (at least in part) new. There may be a connection of some significance between the command to write and the salvific operation of kenotic transfiguration.
'Then he said to me, "They have come to pass! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give water as a free gift from the spring of the water of life."'
This verse brings us to the problematic that Brandie (I think rightly) identified as central to the constitution of a city that is truly new and holy: the transfiguration of thirst or desire.
Allow me to venture the following hypothesis about how thirst/desire becomes transfigured so as to become new and holy. The key, I think, is given in verse six’s description of how the water/object of desire is given and the way in which it must be received.
There are three parts to this: (1) the water must be freely given as a gift, (2) the water must be freely received as a gift, and (3) both of these things must happen in such a way that they ramify life.
In short, the circulation of desires in the holy city will be shaped by grace: grace for grace, from grace to grace, everyone abandoning possession of themselves in favor of a responsibility for and reception of the other in a grand round of kenotic symmetry. The result is a brilliant burst of light and a flourishing of life.
'Those who conquer will inherit these things, and I will be their God and they will be my sons.'
What is to be conquered here? Is the most likely immediate antecedent “thirst”?
Thirst is conquered insofar as it has been transfigured through the subtraction of any dimension of possessiveness or acquisition, possessiveness having been displaced the kenosis of the gift?
Also, those who conquer will “inherit.” Though, here, to inherit something is qualitatively different from the kind of inheritance familiar to the old heaven and earth. In the old heaven and earth, I only inherit something upon the death of the father. Only once the father is absent can I acquire and possess and inherit.
Here, however, precisely the opposite is described: inheriting these things from God means that God comes with the inheritance as my God. As a result, inheritance gives me no possession except for the gift of my kenotic dispossession. Rather than finally being in charge (“I’ve finally inherited the throne, the money, the honor, all for myself!”), I’ve inherited the gift of being an eternally dispossessed, self-emptying servant.
Finally, note that the term “God” is here paired with “sons.” To be a God is correlative to being a son.
'But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.'
The opposite of conquering? First up on the list is being a coward.
To be a coward: to fail to open one’s doors, to fail to be “among” or “with”.
The marks of cowardice: faithlessness, pollution, violence, fornication, sorcery, idolatry, and (above all) falsehood.
Also, Brandie has already nicely pointed out the juxtaposition of “the waters of life” with “the lake that burns with fire and sulfur.” I'd just add that we might read thirst or desire as still being central to this second image as well: the lake of fire burns without respite precisely because it involves a misrelation to desire such that we are consumed by these desires. Rather than giving life, they give death. And not just one death, but two: a second death.
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, 11 Having the glory of God: and her light [was] like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal; 12 And had a wall great and high, [and] had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are [the names] of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: 13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates. 14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. 15 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof. 16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal. 17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred [and] forty [and] four cubits, [according to] the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.
This section offers the first description of the holy Jerusalem, full of resplendent glory.
Vs.10 “carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain” – Although Moses, in the Pearl of Great Price, mentions being “caught up into an exceedingly high mountain” (Moses 1:1), the only other prophet who mentions being carried away in the spirit “into an exceedingly high mountain” (1 Ne 10:1) in order to see a vision is Nephi, who later ties his vision to that of John (see comment below about other connections between Nephi’s vision and Revelation). Nephi uses this imagery of motion while “in the Spirit” six times in the space of six chapters while describing his vision, three times referring to himself, once referring to the Apostles of the Lamb, and twice referring to Mary. In each instance, physical movement is described, with the individual being “caught away” or “carried away.” This type of visionary movement is not used again throughout the rest of the Book of Mormon, although a later Nephi is literally “conveyed away” (He 10:16) from one group of people “in the Spirit” (Hel 10:17) in order to preach to another. Paul mentions being “caught up” into a vision of paradise, and implies movement when he mentions that he isn’t aware whether he was caught up “in the body” or “out of the body.” Joseph Smith’s vision of heavenly realms in D&C 76 combines the two themes, mentioning an uncertainty about the corporeal nature of the experience, and mentioning numerous times that he and Sidney Rigdon are “in the spirit.” Elsewhere in scripture, such as in Rev 4:2, being “in the spirit” seems to imply not that the spirit has carried the prophet to another location in order to see the vision, but that the prophet is in the correct frame of mind and endowed with the power of God in order to perceive the vision.
This leads back to Eric’s earlier statement: “Saints in every age labor to build a holy community… 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.” While the author of Revelation had to be carried to another location in order to be in the correct location to see the holy city descend, it is also important in interpreting the vision to understand that disciples of Christ must be “in the spirit” to recognize the qualities of and to help bring to pass the holy city, as builders of Zion. For this prophetic goal, see Heb 11:10, Abraham: “For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.”
Vs. 11-17 -- Interestingly, the author of Revelation describes being carried away in the Spirit one other time in Revelation: when he had the vision of the mother of harlots, representing the worldly city Babylon. In this case, rather than being carried to a high mountain, he was carried away into the wilderness. While the abode of the mother of harlots in the wilderness might remind the reader of the curse placed on Adam and Eve: “Cursed is the ground for thy sake… thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee” (Gen 3:17-18), the high mountain would serve as a reminder of the paradisiacal Garden of Eden, which served as high ground for the rivers which descended from it to water the earth (Gen 2:10-14). While the wilderness creates an image of the desolation and curse of the world, the mountain signals to the reader an entry into sacred space, where heaven can touch earth and where the chaos of a fallen world can be overcome as order is created by divine interaction. Accordingly, the city of God is a place of beauty and order in Revelation, where tears are wiped away and where the chaos of death, sorrow, crying, and pain are done away with (21:4). I will refrain from commenting on jasper, since the stones of the city will likely be discussed further in a subsequent section of this blog. The gates, wall, and foundation of the city have been built to exact, symbolically significant measurements and the city is perfectly symmetrical (21:13-17).
The constant repetition of various forms of the number 12, with the overt reference to the twelve apostles and to the twelve tribes of Israel, whose names are written on the gates and on the foundations of the wall, may indicate that God remembers his promises and covenants with the ancient tribes of Israel, whose destiny is now tied up with Christ’s meridian-day and (and latter-day) Church. Both modes of leadership in God’s kingdom are tied together in the heavenly city: patriarchal leadership and apostolic leadership, and both are necessary. The number 12 could signify the importance of priesthood power and the importance of the Abrahamic covenant and God’s promise to gather and redeem the twelve tribes of Israel in the last days. Twelve squared in vs. 17 would then symbolize a fullness of priesthood power and a fullness of the redemption of the twelve tribes. The size and shape of the city (vs. 16-17) should also be mentioned. The length, breadth, and height (!) of the holy city are each 12,000 stadion, or almost 1,400 miles! (1 stadion = about 200 yards.) The city is beyond the scope of human effort and must be measured by an angel, much like the wall of the temple in Ezekiel 40. This is in contrast to Revelation 11, in which John was asked to measure the temple while the earthly city of Jerusalem was still under worldly influence. The temple still maintained order in the midst of chaos in Rev 11, and could be measured. However, the immense walls of the holy city in Rev 21 could not be measured by a human being. They were the work of God. The shape of the city as a perfect cube could also symbolize the joining of earth and heaven. The 4-sided dimensions of the square symbolizes the four “corners” of the earth, but the additional third dimension of height symbolizing a heavenly perfection that existed within the city.
In the holy city, the foundations will prevent the wall from falling, the extremely high walls will protect the inhabitants and keep evil and disorder out, and the gates will allow all of the true “children of Israel” to enter. The presence of angels at each of the gates of the city reminds of the cherubim on the veil of the Tabernacle which guarded the entrance to the Holy of Holies, even more so since the dimensions of the city are a perfect square, reminiscent of the shape of the Holy of Holies. The image of the cherubim upon the veil in turn reminds of the cherubim who were placed at the entrance of Eden to guard the way back to the tree of life. Further imagery connecting the holy Jerusalem with the garden of Eden will come in Rev 22. All of this stands in contrast to Babylon, in which there is not mention of a foundation, wall, or gates. It is full of chaos, “abominations,” (17:5) and “the blood of the saints,” (17:6). It is the “habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird” (18:2). Later in chapter 21, the contrast between the order of the holy Jerusalem and the chaos of Babylon is made clear: “And there shall in no wise enter into it anything that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abominations or maketh a lie” (21:27). Through symbolic imagery, Revelation teaches of the results of staying under the influence of the world and of Babylon, and the serenity, peace, and order that are available when one comes to sacred space, is “in the spirit,” and can be a part of the holy city of God. The orderly measuring of the holy city might also remind the Latter-day Saint reader of the model of holy cities centered on temples, presented by Joseph Smith and continued by Brigham Young. In these cities the streets of the community spread out in orderly fashion from the temple, with wide roads, spacious lots, and an orderly distribution of homes, much like Moses’ camp of Israel was centered on the temple in an orderly fashion, with three tribes on each side. Saints and disciples seek to create order from chaos, and promote life where there was previously wilderness.
The earthly city, Babylon: Eric earlier mentioned the scriptural precedence for a bride being connected with a city, and Julie questioned whether the negative image of cities in Genesis is redeemed with the emergence of the holy city. What is the connection between the bride and the city? I’ll present here one possible answer to that question and would welcome other thoughts. Because cities are only created when men and women decide to live in close proximity to each other, cooperating to achieve common purposes, the city becomes an excellent symbol for community, or unity. The instance of the tower of Babylon provides an archetype for the dangers of a city of mankind bent on selfish, prideful designs. Men have great power when they use their agency and desires to join together and accomplish their designs. At the tower of Babel, the combination that was created sought to thwart God’s designs. The Lord said of their work, “This they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. (Gen 11:6)” Similar warnings against the power of evil combinations of men to overthrow the work of God are found in abundance in the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price. The great city Babylon became the symbol par excellence of a society of mankind full of pride and full of the love of material things, which sought to thwart the purposes of God to fulfill its own lustful desires.
The heavenly city, Jerusalem: The city of Enoch works as the opposing symbol to the tower of Babel, but is not mentioned in Genesis. We instead have to find a description of it in the JST and in the Pearl of Great Price. While those at the tower of Babel desired to make a name for themselves (Gen 11:4), the inhabitants of Zion desired to dwell in righteousness (Moses 7:18), and received their name from God. The author of Revelation sets up the scene beautifully. Babylon is described at length in Rev 17, and the reader is shown that, while powerful, the combinations of men will not overthrow the works of God in the end, but will be overcome by the disorder and chaos that they sought to embrace. Just as the evil attempts of mankind concluded in even greater disorder and lack of unity at the tower of Babel because of God’s power to confuse the languages, so will Babylon ultimately be destroyed because of God’s sovereignty. Instead of Babylon, when heaven connects with earth, heavenly cities dwelt in by humankind can be created and mankind can overcome the chaos of a fallen world to live in peaceful and righteous community. The key to the redemption of the city is found in the sovereignty of God and mankind’s acceptance of heavenly principles. The importance of the model of the righteous, heavenly city is emphasized in LDS scripture. JST Gen 9:21-22 repeats a theme that has been mentioned earlier in this blog: The heavenly city comes when God sends it, but also when mankind is prepared to create it. The rainbow was set as a sign that the heavenly city would be sent again by God as soon as there was a people prepared to follow God’s commandments. “21b. When men should keep all my commandments, Zion should again come on the earth, the city of Enoch which I have caught up unto myself. 22. And this is mine everlasting covenant, that when they posterity shall embrace the truth, and look upward, then shall Zion look downward….” The connection between covenant and holy cities is inferred by this statement.
The symbol of the woman: The woman, as a symbol of life and creation through procreative powers, is also a powerful symbol of unity. When procreative powers are abused in a mocking irony of the unity that should only exist within the marital covenant, the woman is described as the harlot, or the mother of all harlots. But when the woman becomes a holy bride, prepared for the bridegroom, then the earth can be prepared for the unity that will exist when God rules over his people and they are unified through sacred covenants. In short, both the woman and the city are used as symbols of unity, community, power, beauty, and life. When the power of community or the power of life are used for lustful, selfish purposes, the symbols become an evil mockery of that which is good, and are destined for failure and destruction. When they are used to connect to and become one with God, they are symbols of joy and beauty. I believe Rev 12:17 contains a central statement of the book which emphasizes the importance of the symbol of the woman. It describes Satan’s war against the life, unity, and community that the people of God seek to create, symbolized by the woman: “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”
Side comment: A few other similarities between Nephi’s vision and that of the author of Revelation include (among many others, I’m sure): 1) John contrasts the mother of harlots (17:5), representing the city of Babylon, with the bride of the Lamb, the holy Jerusalem (21:9-10). Nephi contrasts the glorious virgin, in the city of Nazareth (1 Ne 11:13) with the “mother of all harlots,” “the great and abominable church… whose founder is the devil” (1 Ne 14:17) and who will have God’s wrath poured out upon her, as also occurs in Revelation. 2) The author of Revelation uses the title Lamb for Christ 26 times. The only other time in the New Testament that this title is used is in the Gospel of John, where it is used twice. Nephi uses the title “Lamb” for Christ 56 times during his vision. (It is used once before Nephi’s vision when Lehi was describing his own vision.) The title is not used elsewhere besides in Nephi’s writings (he also uses it in his concluding address, 2 Ne 31-33) until Alma the younger (three times), Mormon (once) and Moroni (five times). Interestingly, two of the times Moroni uses the title (so, two out of the nine times it is used by someone other than Nephi), are in his description of Ether’s vision of the New Jerusalem. 3) The commands given to the author of Revelation to “look/behold,” and to “write” (mentioned earlier by Brandie), are prevalent in Nephi’s vision as well, although the command to write is only implied in 1 Ne 14. Nephi is commanded to “Look!” (with a heavy, urgent emphasis on action) thirteen different times in his short vision. This command is not used anywhere else in the Book of Mormon in the same way.