Why “New Jerusalem” Is Not Our Future Home (Part Two)

The “Jerusalem above”

In Galatians 4:26, Paul declared that “the Jerusalem above” is “mother of us all.” But does this statement support the commonly-held belief among Christians that those in the body of Christ will actually be residing in New Jerusalem after it has descended out of heaven from God? I don’t think so. But before I explain why, I think it would be helpful to first demonstrate the fact that, in contrast with Israel’s relationship to the law during the present and future eon, God’s covenant people are going to be free from the law (as opposed to “under law”) during the final eon of Christ’s reign.

In Matthew 5:17-20 we read that Christ declared the following to his disciples:

“You should not infer that I came to demolish the law or the prophets. I came not to demolish, but to fulfill. For verily, I am saying to you, Till heaven and earth should be passing by, one iota or one serif may by no means be passing by from the law till all should be occurring. Whosoever, then, should be annulling one of the least of these precepts, and should be teaching men thus, the least in the kingdom of the heavens shall he be called. Yet whoever should be doing and teaching them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens. For I am saying to you that, if ever your righteousness should not be superabounding more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, by no means may you be entering into the kingdom of the heavens.”

When Christ referred to a “righteousness” that is “super-abounding more than that of the scribes and the Pharisees,” the immediate context makes it clear that he was not referring to a righteousness that’s received through “faith apart from works” (and which is reckoned to sinners on the basis of Christ’s faith). Rather, it was a righteousness that essentially involves doing the precepts of the law (and thus being “just” and “blameless” in the sense that we’re told Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth were as a result of their “going in all of the precepts and just statutes of the Lord”; see Luke 1:6). For as Christ made clear in Matt. 23:1-3, doing the precepts of the law was the very thing that the scribes and Pharisees weren’t doing (and was the reason why Christ commanded his disciples to do and keep what the scribes and Pharisees said when they taught from the law of Moses, but not to imitate their hypocritical acts).

Now, when Christ referred to “demolishing” the law and the prophets, he meant putting an end to them, and making them no longer applicable to (or authoritative for) Israel. But this, of course, is the very thing that Christ declared he did not come to do. Instead, he came to “fulfill” them. There seems to be quite a bit of confusion among Christians concerning what, exactly, the word translated “fulfill” (pleroo) means here. Many Christians interpret the word to mean “bring an end to.” However, such an interpretation is clearly illogical and absurd, as it would essentially have Christ declaring that he didn’t come to put an end to the law or the prophets, but to put an end to them!

The literal meaning of the word pleroo means to “make full,” and – like many words – can convey different ideas depending on the context in which it’s used. In this context, it’s clearly used in contrast with the words translated “demolish” (or “destroy”) and “annul,” and thus expresses a different idea than that conveyed through these words. The key to its meaning here is, I believe, found in the fact that it’s connected with both “the law” and “the prophets.” When a certain prophecy is “fulfilled,” that which was written or spoken is not “ended” or “terminated.” Rather, that which was prophesied actually occurs or is brought about. It is, in other words, carried out, or carried into effect. For a prophecy to be “fulfilled” (or “made full”), then, is for it to be carried out, or carried into effect.

The same meaning of pleroo is found in Matt. 3:15, where Christ declared that it was “becoming for us [himself and John] to fulfill all righteousness.” Christ didn’t mean, of course, that it was becoming for them to bring an end to all righteousness. Rather, he meant it was becoming for them to carry it out fully, or put it into effect. In the same way, Christ wasn’t talking about putting an end to the law or the prophets. He was talking about carrying out, or fully implementing, what was written in the law and the prophets. Christ then went on to declare, “For verily, I am saying to you, Till heaven and earth should be passing by, one iota or one serif may by no means be passing by from the law till all should be occurring.”

Why did Christ begin by saying, “Till heaven and earth should be passing by?” Well, in Deut. 30:15-19, heaven and earth are referred to by Moses as the two witnesses to the giving of the law to Israel:

“See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, in that I command you today to love Yahweh your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments, his statutes, and his judgments, that you may live and multiply; and Yahweh your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess…I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live.” 

This is why “heaven and earth” must “be passing by” before the precepts of the law that Israel is under obligation to keep can “be passing by.” Christ knew that, as long as the present heaven and earth remained, Israel would remain under the law. It is for this reason that Christ declared that anyone guilty of “annulling one of the least of these precepts” and “teaching men thus” would be called “the least in the kingdom of the heavens.” But what did Christ mean by “till all should be occurring?” Answer: Based on the immediate context, the “all” that Christ said “should be occurring” is likely a reference to everything written in the law and the prophets (which Christ declared he came to fulfill). In other words, the law given by God to Israel will not be passing away till everything written in the law and the prophets occurs. And since we know from the prophets that the law given to Israel will continue to be in effect during the eon to come (e.g., Isaiah 2:2-3; 66:22-23; Jer. 31:33; Ezekiel 36:27; 37:24; 44:15-17, 24; 45:21, 25; Micah 4:1-2; Zech. 14:16-18; etc.), it follows that the passing of the law cannot occur before the end of the eon to come.

However, after the passing away of heaven and earth, God’s covenant people will no longer be “under law.” And since the citizens of New Jerusalem will no longer be under an obligation to keep the law in order to live (and avoid being cursed), the “Jerusalem above” serves as a fitting contrast to the then-present Jerusalem of which the Judaizers were, figuratively, “children” (because of their being in slavery to the law), and which corresponded to mount Sinai/Hagar. It is for this reason that Paul introduced the “Jerusalem above” into his allegorical argument against the Judaizers (which begins in v. 21). And the reason Paul was using an allegorical argument from the law in the first place is because some of the saints in Galatia were being influenced by certain “Judaizers” to come under Israel’s covenant-based obligation to keep the law. But why would he refer to this future home of the saints of Israel during the final eon as “mother of us all?”

In Paul’s allegorical argument, Hagar (the “slave woman”) represents the old covenant and Mount Sinai, and corresponds to the “present Jerusalem,” who was “in slavery [to the law] with her children” (vv. 24-25). In contrast, Abraham’s wife, Sarah, corresponds to “the Jerusalem above,” who, we’re told, “is free.” Notice that, in verses 26 and 31, both the “Jerusalem above” and Sarah (the “free woman”) are spoken of as if they are the mother of the believers to whom Paul wrote. Obviously, Paul was using figurative, metaphorical language in both instances; neither Sarah nor the “Jerusalem above” are literally the mothers of those to whom Paul wrote. In the case of Sarah, believers are (figuratively) her “children” in the sense that we are like her son, Isaac. Isaac represents those who are “children of promise,” and, being free rather than slaves, are consequently “enjoyers of an allotment” (see Gal.  3:29; 4:7; cf. Rom. 8:17). Just as Sarah is figuratively described as our mother (and we her children) because we are like her son Isaac (we resemble him in some important sense), so the “Jerusalem above” is metaphorically said to be “mother of us all” because we are like her future citizens (we resemble them in some important sense).

Notice that Paul said the “children” of the earthly Jerusalem were “in slavery.” That is, the earthly Jerusalem that was then present was, figuratively speaking, the “mother” of those who were in slavery (i.e., her citizens). As I’ve argued in my study “God’s covenant people,” the believers among God’s covenant people in Paul’s day were just as much “under law” as were the people of Israel in Moses’ day. That is, they had a covenant-based obligation to keep its precepts in order to avoid condemnation/cursing. However, since the “Jerusalem above is free,” it follows that her “children” are also free. Just as we are said to be “children” of Sarah because of what we have in common with Isaac (we are like Isaac in that we’re “children of promise”), so New Jerusalem is metaphorically said to be our “mother” because of the distinguishing characteristic that we share with her future citizens. And what distinguishing characteristic is that? Answer: not being enslaved to the law of Moses.[1] That is, we who are in the body of Christ are just as free from the law of Moses as the future citizens of New Jerusalem will be during the final eon of Christ’s reign.

Thus, when Paul referred to the “Jerusalem above” as “mother of us all,” he need not be understood as having been teaching the saints to whom he wrote about their eonian expectation. As has been argued above, abiding in New Jerusalem during the final eon of Christ’s reign is a blessing specifically for the faithful descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (as the circumcised patriarchs of Israel), and not for “the nations” (who, we’re told, will be living on the new earth outside the city and “walking by means of its light”). Rather than teaching the saints of Galatia about their eonian expectation in Galatians 4:26, Paul’s reference to New Jerusalem was simply meant to emphasize the fact that, in contrast with God’s covenant people during the present and future eon (but in accord with their destiny during the final eon), members of the body of Christ are free from the law. However, despite our having this in common with the future citizens of the “Jerusalem above,” we have good reason to believe that our expectation is distinct from the expectation of those who will be dwelling within New Jerusalem during the final eon of Christ’s reign.

Our expectation

In contrast with what we read concerning the expectation of those who will be living on the new earth and dwelling within New Jerusalem during the final eon of Christ’s reign, we read in Eph. 2:6-7 that those in the body of Christ will, during the eons to come, be seated together “among the celestials” (en tois epouraniois). As noted by Knoch, the term epouraniois (“celestials” or “heavenlies”) is in the dative case, and thus denotes locality. It’s also plural (as the translations “celestials” and “heavenlies” make clear). But what is the meaning of the expression in which the term epouraniois is used?

Most scholars believe Paul was referring to celestial regions, or realms (which is the idea expressed in the more common translation, “in the heavenly places”). Others, however, think the expression refers to celestial beings (or both celestial beings and celestial things). According to this view, Paul had in mind the same heavenly beings to which he was referring when he declared that Christ ascended ”up over all who are of the heavens” (Eph. 4:10; cf. Heb. 7:26, where we read that Christ came to be “higher than those of the heavens”). It’s also possible that Paul purposefully chose an expression that could refer to both celestial regions and celestial beings/things. In any case, the point that needs to be emphasized is that the location that Paul undoubtedly had in mind when he used the expression “en tois epouraniois” is the location that Paul most often referred to as “the heavens,” and which the author of the letter to the Hebrews referred to as both “the heavens” (Heb. 4:14; 7:26; 8:1-2) and “heaven itself” (Heb. 9:23-24).

Paul’s use of the expression “among the celestials” in Eph. 3:10 and 6:12 can be understood as further confirmation that the location to which the expression refers is the same location as that referred to by the related expression “in the heavens.” Compare these verses with Colossians 1:16:

“…that now may be made known to the sovereignties and the authorities among the celestials, through the ecclesia, the multifarious wisdom of God…”

“…for it is not ours to wrestle with blood and flesh, but with the sovereignties, with the authorities, with the world-mights of this darkness, with the spiritual forces of wickedness among the celestials.”

“…for in Him is all created, that in the heavens and that on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or sovereignties, or authorities, all is created through Him and for Him…”

Since Paul wasn’t referring to “the sovereignties and the authorities” that are “on the earth” in Eph. 3:10 and 6:12, he must’ve been referring to those who are “in the heavens.” Thus, the location to which the expression “among the celestials” refers in Eph. 3:10 and 6:12 is “the heavens.”

Thus, regardless of whether the expression “among the celestials” is referring to celestial regions that comprise “the heavens” or to the beings that are “of the heavens,” we can be sure that Paul had in view the entire celestial realm in which Christ presently sits enthroned at God’s right hand (Eph. 1:20). Thus, by his use of the expression en tois epouraniois, Paul was referring to a realm that is not only inhabited by celestial beings now, but which will be inhabited by celestial beings after New Jerusalem has descended “out of heaven from God.” And it is in this realm – which is referred to elsewhere as “the heavens” and “heaven itself” – that we’ll be seated together with Christ and will be enjoying “every spiritual blessing” during the “oncoming eons” (Eph. 1:3; 2:7).

It is because the location in which we in the body of Christ are destined to enjoy our eonian allotment is celestial in location that we (who are presently “soilish” in nature) must come to wear “the image…of the Celestial,” and thereby become “celestials” (1 Cor. 15:48-49). Our mortal, “terrestrial” body must be transformed into a body that is fit for the realm where Christ, the Celestial One, resides and inherently belongs – i.e., the heavens (1 Cor. 15:47). In 2 Cor. 5:2, our glorified body is described as “our habitation which is out of heaven.” As in 1 Cor. 15:47 (where Christ is referred to as “the Lord out of heaven”), the term translated “out of” in this verse (ek) expresses the idea that, after we’ve come to wear Christ’s celestial image, the heavenly realm will be the place to which our glorified body will inherently belong.[2] Hence, the future, vivified body that we in the body of Christ will possess after “the mortal may be swallowed up by life” is described by Paul as being “eonian, in the heavens.” (2 Cor. 5:1). In accord with this fact, we’re told by Paul that we have an “expectation reserved for [us] in the heavens” (Col. 1:5), and that “our realm is inherent in the heavens, out of which we are awaiting a Savior also” (Phil. 3:20).

The word translated “realm” in Phil. 3:20 is politeuma (the elements of which translate as “MANY-effect”). It occurs only here in the Greek Scriptures. The more commonly-used word from which this term is derived is polis (“MANY”), and means “a place of many people” (i.e., a city). There is good reason to understand the term used by Paul in Phil. 3:20 to denote the realm (or ruled domain) in which we will be dwelling during the eons to come. Although the expression translated “the heavens” in Phil. 3:20 is plural, the term politeuma is in the singular. And since the expression translated “out of which” (ex hou) is also singular (the plural form – which Paul didn’t use – is ex hon), it means that it is from this realm (singular) that we are awaiting our Savior, Christ. It’s also worth noting that this realm is not merely said to be “in the heavens” but rather “inherent in the heavens.” The word translated “inherent” is huparch’ō (“UNDER-ORIGINate”), and expresses the idea that the realm in view permanently belongs to “the heavens.” And this realm that is “inherent in the heavens” (and from which we are awaiting a Savior) is the very realm to which we in the body of Christ will belong during “the oncoming eons,” when God will be “displaying the transcendent riches of His grace in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus.” 

In accord with what we read above, Paul wrote the following in Colossians 3:1-4:

If, then, you were roused together with Christ, be seeking that which is above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. Be disposed to that which is above, not to that on the earth, for you died, and your life is hid together with Christ in God. Whenever Christ, our Life, should be manifested, then you also shall be manifested together with Him in glory.

It’s important to understand what, exactly, Paul was exhorting the saints to whom he wrote to be doing in this passage. Although some understand Paul’s words here as simply being an exhortation for believers to keep their focus on Christ, that’s not what Paul wrote here. As important and necessary as it is for us to keep our focus on Christ (and on what he did for us), the focus of this passage is actually on the location where Christ is presently seated. It is the heavenly/celestial realm itself (i.e., “where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God”) that we are to be “seeking,” and to which we are to be “disposed.” And there would be no good reason for Paul to exhort believers to be “seeking” the heavenly realm in which Christ is seated if this wasn’t the location in which we’ll be enjoying our eonian life after we’ve been “manifested together with [Christ] in glory.” Thus, when Paul previously wrote that members of the body of Christ have an “expectation reserved for [us] in the heavens” (Col. 1:5), we can conclude that this expectation reserved for us in the heavens will actually be enjoyed by us in the heavens (rather than simply being kept there and then given to us later while we’re on the earth).

Conclusion

There are some in the body of Christ today who, in spite of the scriptural evidence presented in this study, nevertheless believe that the earth – and not heaven – is going to be the eonian home of the saints to whom Paul wrote (i.e., those who belonged to what Paul referred to as “all the ecclesias of the nations” and who belong, collectively, to what Paul referred to as “the ecclesia which is [Christ’s] body”). In support of this view, certain verses in which New Jerusalem is referred to are sometimes appealed to. However, the fact that the saints who constitute the body of Christ are going to be “among the celestials” and “in the heavens” during “the oncoming eons” means that we’re going to be in the heavens and among the celestials both before and after New Jerusalem has “descended out of heaven from God.” Thus, one cannot appeal to verses such as Hebrews 12:22 or Galatians 4:26 in support of the view that New Jerusalem is going to be the eonian home of the body of Christ. Consider, for example, the following unsound argument:

1. Paul referred to the eonian expectation of those in the body of Christ as one that will involve being “among the celestials” and “in the heavens” (Eph. 1:3, 20; 2:6-7; 2 Cor. 5:1-2; Phil. 3:20).

2. New Jerusalem is referred to as “celestial Jerusalem” in Hebrews 12:22.

3. Therefore, Paul believed that those in the body of Christ will, along with the twelve apostles and all the saints of Israel, be residing in New Jerusalem during the final eon.

Although the two premises of this argument are true, the argument itself is a non-sequitur (for the conclusion does not follow from the premises). Again, the expressions Paul used in reference to the expectation of those in the body of Christ refers to the location in which they will be seated together with Christ and enjoying every spiritual blessing during the eons to come. In contrast, the only time that New Jerusalem can be considered celestial in its location (i.e., celestial in accord with the use of the dative case) is before it becomes the home of the saints among God’s covenant people, Israel. After it has become the home of the saints during the final eon (i.e., after it has descended “out of heaven from God”) it will cease to be “celestial” in a locational sense.

In contrast with the above unsound argument, here are some scripture-based arguments that are not only logically valid, but demonstrate the error of those who hold to the conclusion of the above argument:

1. The location where we in the body of Christ are going to be seated during the “oncoming eons” and enjoying eonian life in our vivified body is the same location where Christ is said to be located – i.e., “among the celestials” and “in the heavens” (Eph. 1:3, 20; 2:6-7; 2 Cor. 5:1-2; Phil. 3:20).

2. During the final eon, when the saints among “the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel” are going to be residing in New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:12; 22:3), the location of New Jerusalem will not be “among the celestials” and “in the heavens” (Rev. 21:2, 10).

3. Residing in New Jerusalem during the final eon is not part of the expectation of the body of Christ.

1. The expectation of those who will be residing in New Jerusalem during the final eon of Christ's reign will be a continuation of the expectation that will involve “the citadel of the saints and the beloved city” being surrounded by “all the nations which are in the four corners of the earth” (Rev. 20:7-9), and which is referred to in greater detail in Ezekiel 36-39.

2. The body of Christ has no part in the expectation that will involve “the citadel of the saints and the beloved city” being surrounded by “all the nations which are in the four corners of the earth” (Rev. 20:7-9), and which is referred to in greater detail in Ezekiel 36-39.

3. The expectation of those who will be residing in New Jerusalem during the final eon of Christ's reign is not the expectation of the body of Christ.

1. The company of saints who will be residing within New Jerusalem will include those who will be on the earth when the indignation of God will be manifested against the inhabitants of the earth through the various judgments/calamities we find described in Revelation, and who will be saved at the end of the period of “great affliction” by “enduring to the consummation” (Matt. 24:13-14; cf. Rev. 14:12).

2. No member of the body of Christ is going to be on the earth during this time of indignation (see, for example, a summarized defense of this position in the following article: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/04/a-commentary-on-1-thessalonians-413-18_13.html).

3. The company of saints who will be residing within New Jerusalem during the final eon is distinct from the body of Christ.

1. Just as God will be making ethnic/covenantal distinctions between human beings during the coming “day of the Lord” (e.g., by considering Israel as his “people” and “allotment,” and distinguishing them from “the nations” [Joel 3:1-3], and showing special redemptive favor to a certain group of men who belong to “the tribes of the sons of Israel” [Rev. 7:3-8; 14:1-5]), so God will be making the same sort of ethnic/covenantal distinction between human beings on the new earth as well (Rev. 21:12, 24-26).

2. God has never made, and never will make, any such ethnic/covenantal distinction between members of the body of Christ; all who are in the body of Christ have been made “into one new humanity” (Eph. 2:13-18), wherein “there is no Greek or Jew, Circumcision and Uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, freeman, but all and in all is Christ” (Col. 3:11).

3. Those whose expectation will involve eonian life in New Jerusalem comprise a company of saints that is distinct from the body of Christ.

---

[1] Israel’s future freedom from being “under the law” doesn’t mean that Israel will, during the final eon of Christ’s reign, cease to “sustain” or “fulfill” the law. For, according to Paul in Romans 3:31 and 13:8-10, we who are in the body of Christ sustain and fulfill the law through faith (despite not being under the law). It will be the same for Israel on the new earth.

[2] Similarly, in 1 Cor. 12:15-16, the term ek expresses the idea of a bodily member being “of” (i.e., belonging to) the body. In Gal. 2:15, it expresses the idea of sinners being “of” the nations. In Phil. 4:22 it expresses the idea of certain saints being “of” Caesar’s house. For another example of the expression translated “out of heaven,” see Matt. 21:25-26.

 

Why “New Jerusalem” Is Not Our Future Home (Part One)

According to the arrangement about which we read in Gal. 2:9, the apostle Paul and his co-laborer, Barnabas, were to be “for the nations” while James, Peter and John were to be “for the Circumcision.” “The nations” refers to people who belong to a nation besides the nation of Israel. In contrast, “the Circumcision” refers to the people of Israel (whose covenantal relationship with God is signified by circumcision). In accord with the arrangement referred to in Gal. 2:9, the apostle Paul is the only inspired writer who wrote to believers who could be referred to collectively as “the nations” (Rom. 1:13; 11:13, 25; 15:16, 18), and who comprised what Paul referred to in Rom. 16:4 as ”all the ecclesias of the nations.” Moreover, the believers who comprised these various “ecclesias of the nations” are the believers who, in Paul’s day, constituted that company of saints that Paul (and Paul alone) referred to as “the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12:12-13, 27; Rom. 12:4-5; cf. 1 Cor. 6:15-19; 10:16-17; 12:12-27) and “the ecclesia which is [Christ’s] body” (Eph. 1:22-23; 4:4, 12-16; 5:23-24, 30; Col. 1:18, 24; 2:19; 3:15).

Now, in accord with the fact that there was, in fact, a separation between the ministry of Peter, James and John (who were “for the Circumcision”) and that of Paul and Barnabas (who were “for the nations”), we find that the letters of Peter, James and John were written exclusively to believers among “the Circumcision” (i.e., God’s covenant people, Israel). For example, we read that James wrote his letter “to the twelve tribes in the dispersion” (James 1:1). Similarly, Peter wrote “to the chosen expatriates of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, the province of Asia, and Bithynia…” (1 Pet. 1:1). And in v. 7 of his third letter, the apostle John referred to “the nations” as a company of believers who were distinct from the saints on whose behalf he ministered.  Although some have suggested that “the nations” to whom John made reference here were unbelievers, there’s no good reason to think that John – or any of the Jewish believers to whom he wrote – would’ve expected unbelieving Gentiles to provide financial assistance to any of the Jewish ecclesias. On the other hand, we know for a fact that, in accord with the agreement referred to by Paul in Gal. 2:10, the “ecclesias of the nations” to which Paul wrote had been doing just this (Rom. 15:25-31; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8:1-9:15).

But what about the letter to the Hebrews? Well, the very fact that the letter was written to people who identified as “Hebrews” can be understood as clear evidence that the author wrote to the same kind of believers to whom Peter, James and John wrote. We never once find the term “Hebrew” used in Scripture to refer to Gentiles (nor was it used, as far as I know, in this way in any ancient, extra-biblical writings). Instead, “Hebrews” is the original name of Judeans. Concerning this fact, ancient Jewish historian Josephus wrote: “Sala was the son of Arphaxad; and his son was Heber, from whom they originally called the Jews Hebrews” (Josephus' Antiquities of Jews Book 1, Chapter 6, Paragraph 4). It was after the Hebrews came back to Judea from Babylon that they became known as “Judeans” (or “Jews”). In accord with this fact, Paul – when referring to his Jewish ethnicity – referred to himself as being ”of the race of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews...” (Phil. 3:5). Although there is a figurative sense in which all who are in the body of Christ can be considered “of Abraham’s seed” (and a sense in which Abraham can be considered our “father”), Paul never once referred to members of the body of Christ as “Hebrews” (even in a figurative sense).[1]

The ethnic identity of the recipients of the letter to the Hebrews is further confirmed from the fact that the recipients of the letter are implied to be those who were descendants of “the fathers” to whom God spoke “in the prophets” (Heb. 1:1). We further read that the recipients of this letter belonged to “the people of God” (Heb. 4:9). What we read in Hebrews 10:28-30 and 11:25 makes it clear that this is a reference to God’s covenant people, Israel (and not to believers among the nations). In these verses we read the following:

Anyone repudiating Moses’ law is dying without pity on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, are you supposing, will he be counted worthy who tramples on the Son of God, and deems the blood of the covenant by which he is hallowed contaminating, and outrages the spirit of grace? For we are acquainted with Him Who is saying, Mine is vengeance! I will repay! the Lord is saying, and again, “The Lord will be judging His people.”

By faith Moses, becoming great, disowns the term “son of Pharaoh’s daughter,” preferring rather to be maltreated with the people of God than to have a temporary enjoyment of sin…

In the first passage, the author considered the recipients of his letter as belonging to the same group of people who are in view in the verse from which he was quoting (Deut. 32:36) – i.e., God’s covenant people, Israel. And in the second verse, “the people of God” with whom Moses preferred to be maltreated is another clear reference to Israel. Thus, when the author of the letter to the Hebrews referred to the recipients of his letter as belonging to “the people of God,” he was referring to the people to whom God was referring when he identified himself as “Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews” (Ex. 3:18; 5:1; 7:16).

Now, as I’ve argued in greater depth elsewhere, the eonian expectation of the company of saints to whom Peter, James, Jude, John and the author of the letter to the Hebrews wrote is in accord with Israel’s covenant-based expectation, and will involve eonian life – i.e., life during the eons of Christ’s reign – in the kingdom that is going to be restored to Israel. In the fourth chapter of the letter to the Hebrews we read that a “stopping” (or “rest”) and “sabbatism” remains for Israel (“the people of God”) to enter into. In Hebrews 4:8-11 we read the following:

For, if Joshua causes them to stop, He would not have spoken concerning another day after these things. Consequently a sabbatism is left for the people of God. For he who is entering into His stopping, he also stops from his works even as God from His own. We should be endeavoring, then, to be entering into that stopping, lest anyone should be falling into the same example of stubbornness.

To what does this “stopping” and “sabbatism” refer? The term translated “sabbatism” in v. 9 is the noun “sabbatismos,” and is derived from the cognate verb “sabbatizo.” This latter term is found in the Septuagint translation of several verses (e.g., Ex. 16:30; Lev. 23:32; 26:34; 2 Chron. 36:21), and means “to observe/keep the Sabbath.” Insofar as this is the case, the noun sabbatismos can be understood to mean, “a Sabbath-observance” or “a Sabbath-keeping period.”

We know that this “stopping” and “sabbatism” was not a present, fulfilled reality for those to whom the letter to the Hebrews was written. Rather, it was something into which the recipients of this letter expected to enter at a future time. Based on what we read elsewhere in this letter, the “sabbatism” referred to in Heb. 4:9 should be understood as the period of time following Christ’s return to earth (Heb. 9:28; 10:25, 35-39), when – in accord with Daniel 7:18 and Acts 1:6 – the kingdom is restored to Israel (Heb. 12:28; cf. Luke 21:27-31). It is at this time that the new covenant will be concluded “with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (Heb. 8:1-13), and those constituting what Paul referred to as “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16) and “all Israel” (Rom. 11:26-27) will be receiving “eonian salvation” (Heb. 5:8-10), and “obtaining the promise of the eonian enjoyment of the allotment” (Heb. 9:15-17; cf. 11-12).

Until this time of eonian salvation arrives, the believing Jewish brethren to whom the author wrote had reason to “Beware, lest…anyone of you may be hardened by the seduction of sin. For we have become partners of Christ, that is, if we should be retaining the beginning of the assumption confirmed unto the consummation…” (Heb. 3:12-15). However, after Christ returns and the saints receive the kingdom, the exhortations and warnings with which the letter to the Hebrews abounds (e.g., Heb. 2:1-3; 3:7-4:1; 5:11-6:20; 10:26-39; 12:14-29) will no longer be needed. Their eonian salvation will, at this time, be an experienced reality rather than an expectation that requires obedience, diligence, patience and endurance “unto the consummation.” No longer will such diligence and patience in avoiding and “contending against sin” (12:4) be necessary, since they will have been saved and will be enjoying their deserved “stopping.”

Moreover, since all Sabbaths are preceded by six equal periods of time (Ex. 20:8-11; 23:10-11; Lev. 25:4), it’s reasonable to believe that the “sabbatism” referred to in Heb. 4:9 is a future period of time that will also be preceded by six equal periods of time. But how long is the “sabbatism” referred to in Heb. 4:9 going to last? Answer: In Daniel 7:27 we read that, after Christ returns to earth and establishes the kingdom of God on the earth, the kingdom “shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High.” And in Revelation 5:10 and 20:4-6, it’s revealed that those who are going to be reigning on the earth with Christ will be reigning as kings and priests for “a thousand years.” Thus, the “sabbatism” in view in Heb. 4:9 is going to be a thousand years in duration, and will be preceded by six equal periods of time (i.e., 6,000 years).

Now, among the features of Israel’s expectation during the coming “sabbatism” will be living in the land that God has promised them (the boundaries of which are specified in Numbers 34:1-15; cf. Ezekiel 47:13-48:29), a magnificent temple/sanctuary (which we find described in great detail in Ezekiel 40-43), and a capital city (which is referred to by John as “the beloved city” in Rev. 20:9, and as “Jerusalem” elsewhere in prophecy; see Isaiah 2:1-4; 30:19; 33:20; 52:1-2; Jer. 3:17; 30:18-20; Zech. 8:22; 14:4-21). Concerning the city of Jerusalem during the eon to come, we’re told in Ez. 48:30-35 that the gates of this city will be “named after the tribes of Israel,” and that its circumference “shall be 18,000 cubits.”

As impressive as the future capital of Israel during the eon to come is undoubtedly going to be, however, this city is not going to be the final eonian home of the saints among God’s covenant people. Instead, the city in which the saints are going to be enjoying their eonian life during the final and greatest eon of Christ’s reign is that which Christ referred to as “the city of My God, new Jerusalem, which is descending out of heaven from My God” (Rev. 3:12). And unlike the “beloved city” referred to by John in Rev. 20:9 (which, along with Israel’s final temple, will apparently be designed and constructed by the people of Israel at some point after Christ has returned to earth), God himself is said to be the Artificer and Architect of New Jerusalem. In Hebrews 11:8-10 we read the following:

“By faith Abraham, being called, obeys, coming out into the place which he was about to obtain to enjoy as an allotment, and came out, not versed in where he is coming. By faith he sojourns in the land of promise as in an alien land, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the joint enjoyers of the allotment of the same promise. For he waited for the city having foundations, whose Artificer and Architect is God.”

Although Abraham – by virtue of the faith that he had in God while still “in uncircumcision” – can be considered “the father of all those who are believing through uncircumcision” (Rom. 4:1-12, 16-17), it’s equally true that Abraham is the one to whom God gave “the covenant of circumcision” (Acts 7:8). Contrary to the belief of most Christians (and even some believers), this covenant has not been abrogated by God. And by virtue of this covenant that God made with Abraham and his descendants (i.e., Isaac, Jacob and the twelve tribes of Jacob/Israel), Abraham’s expectation is inseparable from that which belongs to God’s covenant people, Israel. Thus, the city that we’re told God “makes ready” for those referred to as “joint enjoyers of the allotment of the same promise” (Heb. 11:9) is a city for those whose identity and relationship with God is inseparable from the covenants that belong distinctly to Israel (as opposed to “the nations”).

Now, in accord with the words of Christ in Rev. 3:12, we read that John – after having perceived “a new heaven and a new earth” – perceived “the holy city, new Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband” (Rev. 21:1-2). John went on to describe the beautiful and awe-inspiring appearance and dimensions of this magnificent city in detail. We also read that God is going to sit enthroned within this city during the final eon, and will thus be illuminating it by his glory (Rev. 21:22-23; 22:1-5). Most relevant to the subject of this study is what we’re told concerning the gates of this city. In Rev. 21:12-13 we read the following:

“It had a great, high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were inscribed–on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates.”

Just as will be the case with the gates of Israel’s capital during the next eon (Ez. 48:30-35), the gates of New Jerusalem will also be named after the twelve tribes of Israel (meaning that no one will be able to enter the city except through a gate that has one of the names of the twelve tribes of Israel inscribed on it). This fact tells us who the people are for whom the city has been designed. Just like the “beloved city” that will exist on earth during the next eon, New Jerusalem is a city that will be distinctly for the saints who belong to God’s covenant people, Israel. In fact, the clear implication of what we read in Rev. 21:23-26 is that, in contrast with the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel, “the nations” who will be blessed to dwell on the new earth during the final eon will not be dwelling within New Jerusalem:

“And the city has no need of the sun nor of the moon, that they should be appearing in it, for the glory of God illuminates it, and its lamp is the Lambkin. And the nations shall be walking by means of its light, and the kings of the earth are carrying their glory into it. And its portals should under no circumstances be locked by day; for there shall be no night there. And they shall be carrying the glory and the honor of the nations into it, and under no circumstances may anything contaminating, or one who is making an abomination and a lie be entering into it, except those written in the Lambkin's scroll of life.”

According to what we read above, the nations will, during this time, be paying tribute to those within the city. And the fact that the “glory and honor of the nations” is something that “the kings of the earth” will be bringing “into” New Jerusalem indicates that the nations themselves will not be dwelling within the city (and that the words “walking by means of its light” refers to the nations’ activity and experience outside of the city). Thus, although the nations will, during this time, enjoy the blessing that’s expressed in the words, “walking by means of its light,” the city of New Jerusalem will not be “for” them in the same sense that it will be for those who are of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel.

It’s also worth noting what names will appear on the twelve foundations of the city. In Rev. 21:14 we read, “And the wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lambkin.” If the apostle Paul were part of the same company of saints to which the twelve apostles belonged (and had the same calling and expectation as they have), the omission of Paul’s name from the foundations of New Jerusalem would be inexplicable. But just like there will be no need for a thirteenth apostle to judge the twelve tribes of Israel during the eon to come (Matt. 19:28), so New Jerusalem has no need for a thirteenth foundation with Paul’s name on it. Paul – who repudiated his past covenant standing after becoming a member of the body of Christ (Phil. 3:4-8) – simply does not belong there, and we should not try to force him (or the rest of the saints in the body of Christ) into this expectation.

Thus, New Jerusalem (and the blessing and privilege of getting to dwell in this city during the final eon of Christ’s reign) is clearly a continuation of Israel’s covenant-based expectation. But if the expectation revealed in the letter to the Hebrews is one that will involve living and reigning on what the author referred to as “the impending earth” (Heb. 2:5), then how are we to understand the author’s words in Heb. 3:1, 6:4, 11:13-16 and 12:22? In these verses, we read that the recipients of this letter were “partners of a celestial calling,” that they tasted “the celestial gratuity,” and that they were looking forward to a “celestial country” that is later referred to as “the city of the living God, celestial Jerusalem.”

Concerning the use of the term “celestial” in Hebrews 3:1, A.E. Knoch provided the following remarks on page 383 of his Concordant Commentary of the New Testament: 

“It is not easy, in English, to distinguish between the celestial calling, here referred to, and the “calling above” (Phil. 3:14) of Paul’s latest revelation. That which is celestial as to location is often spoken of in Ephesians as our blessing among the celestials (1:3), His seat (1:20), our seat (2:6), the sovereignties and authorities (3:16), our conflict (6:12). This is in the dative case, which gives us the place in which anything is found. It occurs once in Hebrews (12:22). The genitive denotes source or character…the celestial calling [of Hebrews 3:1] is from the ascended Christ, not to heaven, but from heaven. We [those in the body of Christ] are called to heaven, the Hebrews are addressed from heaven.”

As is implied by Knoch’s remarks, every occurrence of the term “celestial” in the letter to the Hebrews – with the sole exception of its use in Heb. 12:22 – is in the genitive case (which, as Knoch notes, “denotes source or character”). And not all that is celestial in character (or source) need be understood as celestial in location (although anything celestial in location is also celestial in character – and can thus be referred to as such). Thus, those who we’re told tasted “the celestial gratuity” (Heb. 6:4) didn’t taste a gift that was up in heaven (for they were on the earth when they “tasted” it). Rather, they tasted a gift that was celestial in its source and character.

With regard to the expression “celestial Jerusalem” in Heb. 12:22, this is, of course, a reference to New Jerusalem. Since this city is now located in heaven, it is referred to as “celestial” in a locational sense (in accord with the use of the dative case). But we know that heaven is not going to be the location of New Jerusalem during the final eon of Christ’s reign. After the creation of the new heaven and new earth, this city is going to be ”descending out of heaven from God.” And after it has descended from heaven (and thereby becomes the home of those who will be dwelling there during the last eon of Christ's reign), it will cease to be celestial in a locational sense; any sense in which it could be considered “celestial” after it has descended out of heaven will be with regard to its character and/or source.  

For part two of this study, click here: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2021/02/why-new-jerusalem-is-not-our-future_11.html

---

[1] For the meaning of the figurative sense in which members of the body of Christ are “of Abraham’s seed,” see the following article: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/11/gods-covenant-people-response-to_24.html.