The New Jerusalem; part one

The new Jerusalem

Part one.

By Richard P. Joseph

Many times when I present the idea of fulfilled theology to someone they bring up the question about the New Jerusalem.  One person even brought up that the very dimensions of it were given as if it were a brick and mortar structure.  I suppose you could take a lifetime researching this subject and still never quite understand it.  I would like to present some of my thoughts but I admittedly have more questions than answers.  The best I can do is present what I know at this point in my journey and hope I get some good feedback.  I am going to split this article up into more than one part in order to take my time on it.  There are a couple of perspectives that I would like to discuss and compare.  I would like to keep in mind a few parameters such as; what was it, when was it, who was it for and where is it?  

The first perspective can be found in an online article that was actually taken from a book; http://www.ukapologetics.net/newjerus.htm .

It is an excellent article and I encourage you to read it.  The second perspective was gathered from some of Ed Stevens works although I couldn’t find an exhaustive work dedicated only to The New Jerusalem.  The main scripture that we are focused on is Revelation 21:2 which reads:

2 Then I, John,[a] saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

John was allowed to see the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven and it was apparelled like a bride for her husband on their wedding day.   

So, what was it?  It was a bride.  The husband was Jesus Christ.  In the article above by H. C. Heffren, he makes this quote; “Christ is not married to a city, but His bride is the church composed of the redeemed of all ages”.   

On the other hand Ed Stevens made this comment to me:

“The book of Revelation says that there is no temple in the New Jerusalem because the Father and the Lamb are its temple. The New Jerusalem is in the unseen spiritual realm. It is not just figurative language about the church or kingdom on earth. It is a real place in the unseen realm to which we go after death. Jesus prepared dwelling places there in that city for His disciples (John 14:1-3). When he returned, he received them into those new dwelling places”.

I am convinced that both statements above contain truth but they do not match exactly.  There is one thing that I would like to clear up first.  For those that think it is an actual city that is placed on the earth here is your answer.  Please see the picture below.

If it were an actual city it would be so big it would make the earth wobble off of its axis.  In fact the curvature of the earth would need to be considered in order for it to not teter. One must apply some common sense when you read the bible.  The New Jerusalem is not a physical building on the earth.  So we are really left with two choices basically.  It has the attributes of a kingdom on earth where true believers are citizens of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ.  We would have a higher calling than the heathen and be able to access and be refreshed by the truth whereas the worldly people can never access this city.  They would be reprobates upon the earth.  This is not hard to believe especially watching the politicians in our current election.  There are some that are plain evil and simply cannot invoke truth for love nor money.  This is not our eternal state but rather the eternal state of the earth.  Once we leave this earth, our souls will then enter the eternal heavenly kingdom where Jesus has prepared places for us.  I believe there is a symbolic side to the New Jerusalem but this does not interfere with an actual heavenly kingdom in which we will truly experience in a physical type of way.   

Ed Stevens is one of the best teachers about cosmology I have seen. Cosmology is the study of how the unseen realm interacts with the seen realm.  Both are actual entities and both were created by God.  The New Jerusalem is a beautiful lesson in cosmology even though I do not understand it very well.

At this point, however, I cannot say with certainty whether the New Jerusalem is the replacement for the Old Jerusalem or whether it is, like Stevens says, the place in the unseen realm where we will go once we leave the earth.  There are arguments that make both plausible.  The one thing I can say for sure is that it is not a giant, brick and mortar city on the earth.    So in other words there is symbolism to it but it may also be a reflection of the physicalness of a heavenly kingdom as well.  We will discuss more of this in the upcoming articles on this same subject.