tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5451417953885022907.post2604520144137397739..comments2009-08-02T16:28:23.717-07:00Comments on Latter-day Saint Readings of Revelation 21-22: Revelation 21:21-23Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5451417953885022907.post-70406246126996848632009-06-22T13:57:12.089-07:002009-06-22T13:57:12.089-07:00Julie says:
"I'm going to disagree with ...Julie says:<br /><br /><b>"I'm going to disagree with The New Interpreter's Bible on the missing temple (and answer in the affirmative the question you ask later): I don't think it reflects crticism of the temple. The city is built along the same dimensions as the Holy of Holies, features the gems from the high priest's breastplate (which was associated with their temple work) and the entire city enjoys God's presence. It doesn't have a temple because it IS a temple."</b><br /><br />I like this reading as well. Though I wonder if a temple that has been stretched into a giant cubic <i>city</i> doesn't involve more differences than similarities with the old notion of a "temple"?Adam Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14276201812948999287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5451417953885022907.post-9962798682149948282009-06-20T13:20:20.270-07:002009-06-20T13:20:20.270-07:00Just one more note:
The imagery of the gold may b...Just one more note:<br /><br />The imagery of the gold may be playing off of 1 Kings 6:30, where Solomon covers the floor of the temple with gold. (This would support my idea that the entire city is a temple.)Julie M. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03456186082820859709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5451417953885022907.post-6173343522641137742009-06-20T13:12:10.464-07:002009-06-20T13:12:10.464-07:00Great post, thanks.
(Reminds me of the old joke a...Great post, thanks.<br /><br />(Reminds me of the old joke about the rich man who, after much pleading, was permitted to bring a suitcase full of his wealth into heaven. He had to open it to show the contents to Saint Peter who furrowed his brow and asked, "Why did you bring paving stones?")<br /><br />I wish I had something to add to the pearl discussion, except that we have no OT references (unless there is something in the LXX that got lost in translation?). I really like your analysis that the collosal size of the pearl is enough to render moot all human conceptions of wealth. This idea does play into our other NT uses of pearl (pearl of great price, cast pearls before swine).<br /><br />Has anyone commented on number symbolism yet? The twelve gates/pearls reminds me of the Twelve Tribes, twelve apostles, and other symbols of authority/priesthood. It is through the gates/priesthood that we enter into the eternal city. <br /><br />I'm going to disagree with The New Interpreter's Bible on the missing temple (and answer in the affirmative the question you ask later): I don't think it reflects crticism of the temple. The city is built along the same dimensions as the Holy of Holies, features the gems from the high priest's breastplate (which was associated with their temple work) and the entire city enjoys God's presence. It doesn't have a temple because it IS a temple.<br /><br />But mashing up some of Shon's comments from an earlier post with what we have here, I think the gem-encrusted perfect angularity of this city does contrast with the flapping, dusty, temporary tabernacle. Jesus did away with that temple/tabernacle when its curtain (which separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of the structure) ripped from top to bottom when he died for us (see Mark 15:38). <br /><br />I love your observation about the temple as a "sealed" relationship. Given that we've already overapped the temple and bride imagery, it seems we'd have an open door to see evidence of a divine feminine here as a part of that sealed relationship.<br /><br />(I'm going to post this and continue in a new comment because my computer is acting up.)Julie M. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03456186082820859709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5451417953885022907.post-81936848900170550412009-06-19T12:16:56.319-07:002009-06-19T12:16:56.319-07:00Thanks, Adam. Your thoughts are helpful and I comp...Thanks, Adam. Your thoughts are helpful and I completely agree.Shon Hopkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08748631270112707966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5451417953885022907.post-83490115008852160252009-06-18T06:55:26.649-07:002009-06-18T06:55:26.649-07:00Shon notes:
"By the way, this image of God a...Shon notes:<br /><br /><b>"By the way, this image of God and the Lamb at the center of a physical city works easily for most Latter-day Saint readers. For the most part we don't have a problem with God being located in a specific, physical place. Would it be worth some space for someone to discuss how this might be interpreted/viewed by other Christian readers? I don't mean to move us away from the task at hand, but it is a question that came to me as I was pondering God's location at the center of the city."</b><br /><br />I wonder, Shon, if it might be easier for those not committed to a corporeal God to read this passage in a more literal way. <br /><br />If God isn't "limited" to any one physical location, then his presence could always shine and light up the city from within. But if God can only be in one spatial location at a time, then Mormons might have to address the fact that God won't always be in this one particular spot (at the center of the city). What happens if he goes some place else, to do something else? Does the city go dark?<br /><br />Either way, though, I'm unsure about how literally we should take these images. I don't actually think the passages are problematic for Mormons or more traditional Christians (at least in this respect). But I think it's an interesting question nonetheless.Adam Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14276201812948999287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5451417953885022907.post-46628428496219753442009-06-17T21:43:46.289-07:002009-06-17T21:43:46.289-07:00My follow-up comments will also connect to your fo...My follow-up comments will also connect to your fourth paragraph. I am interested in the concept of "sacred space," and find it interesting that the only time that the attribute of holiness is explicitly tied to land in the biblical text is in Moses' experience with the burning bush in Exodus 3:5 -- "Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground."<br /><br />In my view, it would appear that holiness and space/place should be tied to the presence of deity. In this thinking it is God who alone can impart holiness to other things, making space holy. Human behaviors can defile holy space, and they can also prepare space which would be appropriate for the divine presenece, but human behaviors don't make places holy -- encounters with the divine do. The ultimate sacred space/location, of course, as stated by Adam and Kevin, is not the temple, but is God's divine presence.<br /><br />I'm also interested in God and the Lamb as the source of the light. In the holy of holies in the tabernacle and in Solomon's temple, it appears that there was not an earthly source of light, signifying that God, symbolically seated on the ark of the covenant, should be the only source of light. Rather than being heliocentric, this concept might be called deocentric (I think I just made that word up.) :) In a heliocentric setting, the light would come from outside of the holy city. However, since light is a source of life, enables sight and perception, and provides knowledge, it makes good sense that the light of the New Jerusalem must be found right at its center, where the Divine presence is located.<br /><br />By the way, this image of God and the Lamb at the center of a physical city works easily for most Latter-day Saint readers. For the most part we don't have a problem with God being located in a specific, physical place. Would it be worth some space for someone to discuss how this might be interpreted/viewed by other Christian readers? I don't mean to move us away from the task at hand, but it is a question that came to me as I was pondering God's location at the center of the city.Shon Hopkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08748631270112707966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5451417953885022907.post-8403670886110423442009-06-16T18:24:46.970-07:002009-06-16T18:24:46.970-07:00I agree with your fourth paragraph under v. 22. M...I agree with your fourth paragraph under v. 22. My reading is that the physical temple is subsumed and therefore unnecessary due to the actual presence of God and the Lamb. No need for a symbolic representation of the divine presence when you've got the real deal.Kevin Barneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06774072688770536035noreply@blogger.com