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.

I want to look at a couple of related questions about Romans, from a couple of unrelated sources. First, Jo is not convinced that the string or catena of Old Testament quotations in Romans 3:10-18 is directed exclusively against the Jews, as I maintain in The Future of the People of God. My contention is that Paul’s argument throughout this section is premised on the prospect of a temporal and realistic wrath against the Jew (cf. Rom. 2:1-10) and is to a large extent a reconstruction of his disputes with the synagogue communities of his mission field. This puts constraints on how we interpret the “theological” content of the letter. Romans is not a piece of universal or standardised “Christian” theologising.