Something About "the New Jerusalem"

Teresa wants to know about Revelation 3:12 and Revelation 21:10; both texts speak about “the New Jerusalem.” Are these texts both about the same thing or different things? Do they both speak about the church or something else?

First, the whole book of Revelation is supposed to be read as a unit. That is, we shouldn't break the book up. It is supposed to function as a whole. The whole structure of the book is a narrative. You wouldn't chop off the last few scenes of a movie like the Return of the Jedi or the last few scenes of Tolkien's Return of the King. Chopping off the tail end of a story cuts the entire climax out of the flow, out of the drama, and leaves it severely lacking. Similarly, to cut Revelation's “drama” at chapter 19 or 20 severely harms what John is trying to do in the text. Chapters 20-22 and chapters 1-3 are interrelated and cannot legitimately be separated from each other. (In fact, John builds an “inclusio” around the book to let the reader know that the book is supposed to function as a whole [cf. 1:1,3; 22:6,10]; the whole book is bracketed, enveloped, by the idea that the whole text, the whole drama, is “near,” “at hand,” “shortly to come to pass.”) And, this leads to a second inquiry . . .

Second, the whole book is situated in a very specific context. Of course, the passages just listed (1:1,3; 22:6,10) don't provide us with all of the details, but they certainly help us identify the details and locate them within John's text. This, here, is not the space for a lengthy exegesis. (I've provided that in my book, “Exposition of Revelation,” which you might find to be helpful, here?) But, Revelation 13 and 17 especially identify “the beast,” indisputably, as the Roman oppressor, specifically, under the current “head” of “the beast,” which is Domitian, the 8th Roman emperor. John paints the whole book in this context. Of course, he does use apocalyptic language, and, of course, the book is a drama, but the details, the mere furniture in and around the vision, make the core elements, the essential message of the apocalyptic drama/vision more accessible. Shortly, the entire drama is in the context of the Roman powerhouse, and the saints are under that era of oppression; the drama presents a futuristic victory of the saints in the defeat of the Roman oppression.

Third, in relation to the question, then, both 3:12 and 21:10 relate to the victory of the saints over the crisis that has been brought about by the Roman oppression. In the opening of the apocalyptic drama, the real “Lord” who is actually the victor over death and actually reigns assures His faithful followers that their endurance with Him and to Him through the Roman crisis will result in their glorious reward. This promise is made with several metaphors (and several of the metaphors relate to the addressed churches specifically). So, metaphorically, John promises that “victory” over the Roman crisis is . . .

– To eat of the tree of life (2:7)

– To receive a crown of life (2:10)

– To be untouched by the second death, which only occurs upon the Roman wicked in the

drama (2:11; cf. 20:4-6,11-15; 21:8)

– To eat of the hidden manna (2:17)

– To receive a white stone with a new name (2:17)

– To receive power over the nations, which is always a reference to the Roman wicked in the

drama (2:26)

– To rule with a rod of iron (2:27)

– To receive the morning star (2:28)

– To be clothed in white raiment (3:5)

– To have name unblotted from the book of life (3:5)

– To be kept from the hour of temptation (3:10)

– To be made a pillar in the temple of God (3:12)

– To “go out no more” (3:12)

– To receive a new name (3:12)

– To supper with Christ (3:20)

– To be enthroned with Christ (3:21)

Now, all of these are mere metaphors. In fact, a serious exegetical treatment will observe that the majority of these metaphors are employed in the Old Testament. Often, one of the Old Testament writers or prophets – like, say, Isaiah – had used such imagery to present a deliverance from the Old Testament “Babylonian” exile. (It's not accidental that John calls his current oppressor “the new Babylon” [cf. 14:6-13; 18:2].) So, what John is doing is presenting – at the early stage of the drama, the outset – that “Babylon” (Rome) is going under and that the saints will be victorious.

But, at the end of the book, the tail end of the drama, John is no longer anticipating the fall of Rome, the oppressor, for in the book, in the drama, it has already occurred. In fact, the fall is presented in Revelation 16 and the details of that fall are given in Revelation 17-22, with the details about the saints victory. Revelation 21 finds itself at the end, after the fall, and it presents what the victory of God's saints, the church, looks like at the end of the drama, when all of the dust has settled, when Rome's oppression is terminated and when the rest/victory of the saints is complete.

So, here's the relation of 3:12 and 21:10 . . . Both texts speak of the saints' victory over the Roman oppression, but 3:12 looks forward, since it has not yet happened in the drama, and it presents promises that are made to the “overcomers,” but 21:10 looks backwards, since the victory has occurred in the drama, and it presents those promises that were made as “realized” or “fulfilled.” The “new Jerusalem” is the church, but specifically, in the book/vision/drama, it is the victorious church, presented as enduring and being blessed after the defeat of the Roman oppression.

There's much more, here. See my lengthier treatment in my “Exposition of Revelation” if you're interested and think that it might be helpful.