I’m getting into the bad habit of answering questions raised in the comments with another post. The reason is that the questions are very good and merit consideration at length, but I wonder if the practice is conducive to good debate. Anyway, Jo says that he has trouble accepting that “European Christendom was the full embodiment of the kingdom of God.” Surely we are led to expect something more “glorious and enduring.” He also introduces the perspective of two black theologians who regard European Christendom as a “whitewashed Christianity” allied to an oppressive imperialism.

What is the kingdom of God? The standard evangelical view is that it is the aggregated rule of God in the hearts of believers in advance of (“now and not yet”) a glorious future kingdom, usually confused either with heaven or the new creation. The main alternative these days would be the “progressive” idea that God is behind social justice developments and expects the church to get with the action—or with the activism.

I thought we were done with the two visions of the descent of the holy city from heaven, but another question has come up, an obvious one. Why are the visions the wrong way round? Why does John first see the descent into the new creation, then the descent into history after the fall of Babylon the great? Why not have the visions in chronological order, climaxing in the new creation at the end of history?

The story so far…

At the end of the book of Revelation the holy city, new Jerusalem, is twice seen descending out of heaven, from God, “prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” These are two different moments in the apocalyptic narrative, I think, not the same moment repeated. To make matters worse, they are presented in the wrong order.

I posted this yesterday as a response to Kaz’s probing question about the presence of the “holy city, new Jerusalem” in the new creation that appears to John after the final judgment. I won’t repeat the argument of “Why does the holy city Jerusalem descend from heaven twice at the end of Revelation?”, but I think that Kaz has drawn attention to something important, and I want to highlight the significance of the reference back to the letters to the churches in Revelation 21:6-8.

At the end of the book of Revelation John sees the “holy city, (new) Jerusalem” descending out of heaven from God twice, seemingly after the final judgment (Rev. 21:2, 9). Why? Are these different events? The same event depicted twice?

I have argued before that the sequence of visions in chapters 20-21 arrives at a final renewal of creation and then reverts to the more pressing historical outlook of the churches in Asia Minor. I think that in Revelation 21:9-22:21 we are back waiting for the “coming” of the Lord Jesus in a foreseeable future (21:6), not to bring in a new heaven and new earth but to bring recompense (21:12) for the suffering of the churches, defeat pagan Rome, and establish his own rule over the nations throughout the coming ages. In view of some suggestions put to me by a theologian in Japan, I want to try to clarify certain aspects of these shifts in focus.

I “attended” an online workshop yesterday hosted by the Centre for the Study of the Bible at Oriel College, Oxford. The theme was “Apocalyptic thinking.” We were treated to some excellent presentations from a good range of scholars, including such luminaries in the apocalyptic firmament as Loren Stuckenbruck and John Collins.