MR. EDITOR, — May I suggest, in answer to the invitation given in the January number, that the difficulty as to the New Jerusalem arises from confusing “the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” of Hebrews 12:2222But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, (Hebrews 12:22), with the Church, or her future glory as the body and bride of Christ.
Is not “the heavenly Jerusalem” the heavenly rest and glory for which the patriarchs looked? “A city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (Heb. 11:1010For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. (Hebrews 11:10)); “for He has prepared for them a city” (ver.16),and they, of course, never awaited the Church of God, Christ’s body, either in its present condition or future glory.
Still, of Christians it is also true surely, when viewed in their pilgrim aspect, that “here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come” (Heb. 13:1414For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come. (Hebrews 13:14)).
I think it will help in the understanding of this important and interesting question, to see the difference between a (not the) heavenly calling and the calling of the Church, about which there is much confusion in many minds. Doubtless all the elect of Old Testament times shared in the heavenly calling, and will have a part in the heavenly glory, being “children of the resurrection” by the Lord’s own word. Would not “the holy city Jerusalem” therefore represent, as you suggest in answer to your correspondent, the whole heavenly company in contrast to the earthly?
Of course the body and bride of Christ will be with Him in the heavenly city during the millennial reign, and in her own place of especial nearness; but the question as I understand it is — whether it is the Church, as such, which is alone seen in the glory described in Revelation 21:1010And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, (Revelation 21:10), &c., or whether the description here given is wide enough to cover all the heavenly saints — the city and its inhabitants, if we may so say. And here, we suggest, is the key to what your correspondent calls the Israelitish description of the city.
“It is not presented as the bride, though it be the bride, the Lamb’s wife,... it is not in the Pauline character of nearness of blessing to Christ” (Synopsis, vol. 5, page 540).
The distinction would therefore be in the bride of Christ in her Ephesian character; and “the bride, the Lamb’s wife,” in the Apocalypse, where she is never seen as “the body” at all; and it is not necessary to seek a distinction between the “city” and the “bride,” which are apparently presented in this scripture (Rev. 21:9, 109And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. 10And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, (Revelation 21:9‑10)) as one and the same.
If this be so, it is evident that the Church, which is Christ’s body and bride, and the bride of the Lamb, are not identical or co-extensive; while the “holy city, new Jerusalem,” and “the bride, the Lamb’s wife,” are. Otherwise would there not be two heavenly Jerusalems?
T. R.
~~~
Lyss. — Is the “city” of Revelation 21 Composed of saints belonging to the Church, or also of all Old Testament saints?
If of the latter, how understand Revelation 21:9, 109And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. 10And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, (Revelation 21:9‑10), “Come here, I will show thee the bride.... And He... showed me the holy city,” &c., which treats the bride and the city as though they were identical?
Abraham “waited for the city which has foundations” (New Translation), but this decides nothing as to what saints compose the city. In the Old Testament it is not stated he so looked, and in the Old Testament there is no mention of a “city” being revealed to him.
It would appear in Hebrews 11, the Holy Spirit describes or interprets his faith in this way, the world at the time of Abraham’s call being engrossed with man’s city, Babylon (Gen. 11). In the same way Moses’ faith is interpreted as “esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt.”
Again, “He hath prepared for them a city.” This says nothing as to what saints compose it, but being “prepared for them,” would it not imply they did not compose it, but simply “that they without us should not be made perfect”?
W. J. C.