The New Jerusalem: People as Place, Not Place for People

Author(s): Robert H. Gundry

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 29, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1987), pp. 254-264
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560758 .
Accessed: 02/10/2012 04:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org
 Novum Testamentum XXIX, 3 (1987)

THE NEW JERUSALEM

PEOPLE AS PLACE, NOT PLACE FOR PEOPLE

by

ROBERT H. GUNDRY
Westmont College, Santa Barbara, CA

Symbolic language fillsthe Book of Revelation as it fillsother

apocalyptic literature.We may thereforepresume that the descrip-
tion of the New Jerusalem in Rev 21:1-22:5 deals in symbolism.
Our presumption is rewarded when we read of the city's coming
down out of heaven, stretchingout and up to unheard-ofdimen-
sions, having gates that each consist of a single pearl, being paved
with gold that can be seen through, and so on. Such language
invitessymbolicinterpretation,whateverthe nature, whethercon-
crete or abstract, of the reality so described.
But the New Jerusalem is a very large symbol. Its description
occupies a whole chapter or more. Therefore we may rightfully
expect that the details of the description contribute small,
individual symbols to the large, overall symbol, even as contem-
poraryinterpretersofJesus' parables have come to understandthat
although we must resist allegorism, the longer the storythat con-
stitutesa narrativeparable, the more likely it is that some details
of the parable have their own significance within the overall
meaning.I
A symbolic interpretationof the New Jerusalem will be an
hypothesis,forany interpretationof any textis an hypothesis.The
proofsof an interpretativehypothesislie firstin its power to bring
the text to life, to make it understandable why the author took the
troubleto writethe textand (to a lesser degree) why its firstreaders
thoughtenough of it at least not to throwit away. Then those proofs

See, e.g., G. Caird, The Language and Imageryof the Bible (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1980) 160-167; J. Drury, "The Sower, the Vineyard, and the Place
of Allegory in the Interpretationof Mark's Parables," JTS ns 24 (1973) 367-379;
H.-J. Klauck, AllegorieundAllegorese in synoptischen (NTAbh NF 13;
Gleichnistexten
Miinster: Aschendorff,1978); C. E. Carlston, "Parable and Allegory Revisited:
An InterpretiveReview," CBQ 43 (1981) 228-242.
 THE NEW JERUSALEM: PEOPLE, NOT PLACE 255

lie in the power of the interpretativehypothesisto explain the data

of the text coherentlyyet completely,naturallyyet deeply, with a
minimum of strainyet a maximum of detail, withwhat mathemati-
cians call elegance-a blend of simplicityand richness. Without
simplicityand naturalness, the suspicion will arise that the inter-
pretationis being foistedon the text. Without richnessand detail,
the suspicion will arise thatthe interpretationdoes not penetratethe
text. Readers of this articlewill thereforeneed to use these criteria
in testingthe interpretationofferedhere.
The interpretationwill proceed according to the followingfor-
mat. We shall state the hypothesisand tell somethingof the defi-
ciencies in its presentationsto date. Then we shall identifyour lines
of approach to it, refineit, and relate it to the text,firstwithregard
to the overall symbol, then with regard to the individual symbols.
Finally, we shall take up objectionsthatmightbe lodged against the
interpretationand draw a conclusion.
To say that the New Jerusalem symbolizes the saints is to say
nothing new.2 But this interpretationhas not been applied very
thoroughlyand consistentlyto the details ofJohn's descriptionof
the New Jerusalem. It has not been tied verycloselyto the situation
of the readers to whom he wrotethe Book of Revelation. And it has
not been carried to the extentof denying that the city even partly
symbolizes the place where the saints will dwell forever.
In our attemptto make up somewhat forthese omissions, let us
set aside source critical questions, e.g., the question of a Jewish
source and the question of an original distinctionbetween a millen-
nial city and an eternal city, and take the text as its stands.
Althoughthose questions are importantin theirown right,we must
presume thatthe textas it stands had a meaning forthe author and
his firstreaders. We want to discover that meaning.
The path to discoverylies along theline ofhistorical-grammatical
interpretation,which assumes thatthe language of the biblical text,
including its symbolic language, grows out of and speaks to the
historical situation of the writerand his readers. To take a non-

2
See esp. W. W. Reader, Die StadtGottesin derJohannesapokalypse
(Dissertation,
University of Gottingen, 1971); R. J. McKelvey, The New Temple(New York:
Oxford, 1969) 167-176; W. Thiising, "Die Vision des 'Neuen Jerusalem' (Apk
21, 1-22, 5) als Verheissung und Gottesverkiindigung," TrThZ 77 (1968) 17-34;
T. Holtz, Die ChristologiederApokalypsedesJohannes(TU 85; Berlin: Akademie,
1962) 191-195.
256 ROBERT H. GUNDRY

referentialview of language, particularly of symbolic language,

may open up possibilitiesof contemporaryinterestand deconstruc-
tive play, but it blocks the path to historical understanding. Our
pursuit of historicalunderstandingthereforerequires that we stick
to the line of referentiallanguage in tryingto interpretthe New
Jerusalem.
Jewish traditionsconcerning a renewal of Jerusalem and con-
cerning a heavenly Jerusalem have often led commentators on
Revelation to think that John Christianizes those traditions in
describingthe final abode of the saints. He not only Christianizes
those traditions,however; he also transforms Jerusaleminto a sym-
bol of the saints themselves. To be sure, a city, like a region or a
countryor even the whole world, may mean both its inhabitants
and their dwelling place. But John is not describing the eternal
dwellingplace of the saints; he is describingthem, and them alone.
Does this hypothesishave the power to enliven the text and give it
an elegant explanation?
Let us refinethe hypothesisand startexploringthe text so as to
make possible an answer to the question. The New Jerusalem is a
dwelling place, to be sure; but it is God's dwelling place in the
saints ratherthan theirdwelling place on earth. The new earth-
the whole of it so far as we can tell, not just a localized city no
matter what megalopolitan size it might attain-is the saints'
dwelling place. Rev 21:1-22:5 does not describe the new earth,
however; it only mentions it. What it describes is the new city,
Jerusalem.
Quite early in his book, John gave a hint that his readers were
to regard the New Jerusalem as personal ratherthat topographical.
At 3:12 he presentedChrist's promise to writeon the overcomer-
i.e., on the professingbeliever who proves to be genuine-the
name of the New Jerusalemas well as the name of God and his own
(i.e., Christ's) new name. In otherwords, Christ identifiesthe New
Jerusalem withthe person who overcomes much as he identifieshis
own person and that of God his Father with the overcomer.3
Another hint appeared in 20:9, where "the beloved city" of the
millennium stood in parallel with "the camp of the saints." To
come against this cityor camp, Gog and Magog had to spread out

3 Cf. the oneness of God, Christ, and believers in John 14-15, 17, which at the
least may come from the same Johannine school out of which came Revelation.
 THE NEW JERUSALEM: PEOPLE, NOT PLACE 257

"over the breadth of the earth." So the citydid not seem to be con-
fined to one spot. It was the saints themselveswherevertheylived
on earth.
In 21:2-3, 9b-10, however, the earlier hints turn into a virtually
explicit personal identificationof the New Jerusalem with the
saints. In this passage John firstcompares the city to a bride
adorned forher husband and then calls the city"the bride, the wife
of the Lamb." We already know from19:7-8 thatthe Lamb's bride
is the saints, arrayed in theirrighteousacts. The repeated descrip-
tion of the bride-wife as "made ready" also unites these two
passages. Confirmationcomes from22:17, where the bride willjoin
the Spirit in saying, "Come," which is the prayer of the suffering
saints, "Amen, come, Lord Jesus" (22:20). Therefore the city =
the bride-wife= the saints, whose dwellingplace John has already
introduced. That dwelling place is the earthly part of the new
universe (21:1), down to which part they descend to take up their
abode (21:2).
On his side, God takes up his abode with the saints (21:3). The
presence of his tabernacle with them means that just as he made
Israel his abode, so he will make the saints, who are the church,his
abode. The better textual tradition (A et al.) reads the plural
"peoples" (AXo() in 21:3, apparently to emphasize the interna-
tionalityof the church, made up as it is of the redeemed fromthe
pagan nations as well as fromIsrael. As peoples, the churchwill be
God's city. Thus the descriptionof the cityis a descriptionof them.
More particularly,it is a description of them that contrastswith
theirstateof afflictionunder the Beast. What the cityis is what they
will be, and what they will be is the happy opposite of what they
are about to sufferunder the Beast.4
What then is this happy opposite? The answer to this question
will not only describe the saints in their eternal perfectedstate; it
will also confirmthe identificationof the new Jerusalem withthem.
The fitbetween the New Jerusalem and the saints will provide the
confirmation,and the completenessof thatfitwill leave nothingleft
over that would require the New Jerusalem to representmore than
the saints themselves.

4 Cf. 1
John 3:2, which does not have to do with sufferingand its reversal,
however.
258 ROBERT H. GUNDRY

The New Jerusalem is holy (21:2). The cowardly, unbelieving,

and abominable, murderers,immoral people, sorcerers,idolaters,
and liars will not be part of it (21:8, 27; 22:15). Thus, John por-
trays the perfected saints as a holy city, not so much purged
individuallyof those sins that need confessionand the advocacy of
Jesus Christ the righteous one,5 but purged collectivelyof those
non-overcomers who avoided persecution by accommodating
themselvesto the world and thus incurredChrist's warningsin the
messages to the seven churches (Revelation 2-3). The list of evil
people probably does not referto non-Christiansin general, whose
fate was described in 20:11-15, but to professingChristians who
turnedout to be falsein time of persecution.Their cowardice made
them shrink back from persecution. Their unbelief made them
unfaithfulto Christ and the church. To save theirnecks, theypar-
ticipated in the vile practices of non-Christiansand murderously
betrayed theirfellowChristians to the persecutingauthoritiesand
practiced the sexual immoralityand magic that went along with
idolatry, and they denied the truthof the gospel in life and word
by accepting the big lie of the Beast (Revelation 13).
John also portraysthe city as new (21:2). That is to say, the
saints will belong to the new earth and the new earth will belong
to them. At the present time some of them sufferdispossession
because of theirChristian life and witness. "I know your tribula-
tion and poverty," Jesus said to the church at Smyrna (2:9). He
probablymeant the persecutionthatcaused thempovery. This kind
of persecution will become worse (cf. esp. 13:16-17). In the new
earth, by contrast,the saints will be the landholders: "But you are
rich" (the very next statementthat Jesus made to the church at
Smyrna) anticipates everlasting earthly wealth. We should not
spiritualize the statement by making it refer to a heavenly
inheritance, for the descent of the New Jerusalem out of heaven
makes it quite clear that the Book of Revelation promises eternal
lifeon the new earth that is mentioned, not ethereallifein the new
heaven that is likewise mentioned. By putting the newness of
Jerusalem in conjunction with the newness of the earth,John pro-
mises a redistributionof property,an exclusive redistributionof
propertyto the saints. It does not require Marxist inclinations to

5 So 1 John 1:9; 2:1.

 THE NEW JERUSALEM: PEOPLE, NOT PLACE 259

see the liveliness of the text (so understood) in the sociological

settingof Christian believers dispossessed throughpersecution.6
The New Jerusalem descends out of heaven from God (21:2).
This descent means that at the dawn of the new creation the saints,
who do not belong to those repeatedlycalled "the earth-dwellers"
in Revelation but who are enrolled in heaven in the Lamb's book
of life,will come fromtheirplace of heavenly origin in God to take
possession of theirproperty,the new earth. In accordance withthe
widespread ancient notion of the heavenly city,or cityof the gods,
commentatorsusually interpretthis part of the description as an
indication that the saints' eternal dwelling place already exists as
the heavenlyJerusalem. But though the adjective "new" contrasts
this Jerusalem with the present earthly one, it also disfavors an
already existing prototypicalcity. For such a city would have to
belong to the presentlyexistingold heaven, yet the new Jerusalem
descends out of the new heaven afterthe old one has passed away.
Furthermore,ifthe New Jerusalem is the perfectedpeoples of God,
its coming down simply follows the Johannine pattern of descent
fromheaven to take possession of the earth.
This pattern appeared, for example, in Rev 10:1-3. There, a
strongangel "comes down out of heaven" and takes over sea and
land by plantinghis pillar-likefeetof fireon them. Likewise, in Rev
18:1 an angel having great authorityand illuminatingthe earth
with his glory "comes down out of heaven" to announce that
Babylon has fallen. And in Rev 20:1 an angel who has the key of
the abyss (cf. the keys of death and of hell that Christ has in 1:18)
"comes down out of heaven" to bind the dragon Satan. Similarly,
then, the coming down of the New Jerusalem representsthe saints'
coming down at the dawn of the new creation to take possession of
an earth no longer dominated by Babylon, no longer ravaged by
Satan.
Sheer happiness characterizes the city, a happiness unadulter-
ated by tears, pain, or death-elements in the old creation that
have peculiar poignancy for those facing persecution to the death
by the Beast (21:4; above all, cf. 7:12-17, but also 2:13; 6:9-11;

6
True, the church at Laodicea is rich in worldly wealth, but their spiritual
poverty calls their salvation into such serious question, perhaps to the point of
denial (cf. 3:17-20), that their worldly wealth does not undermine our taking the
wealth of the New Jerusalem as compensatory for the poverty of persecuted true
believers like those at Smyrna.
260 ROBERT H. GUNDRY

11:1-13; 12:1-13:18; 14:13). But let us pay more attentionto the

absolute securityof the New Jerusalem. The city is perched on a
mountain so huge and high that no invading army could possibly
gain a footholdon it (21:10). The city-wallis so thick and high-
144 cubits thick and naturally as high as the city itself,it would
appear, since 144 cubitswould not at all be high in comparisonwith
the city's heightof 12,000 stadia-the city-wallis so thickand high
that no invading army could penetrateor scale it if theywere able
to gain a footholdon the mountain (21:12a). Standing guard at
each gate is an angel, more than a match forany invader (21:12b).
Twelve mammoth stones, interspersedbetween the gates, support
the wall (21:14a). John is not describingan eternallysecure place.
He is describing eternally secure peoples. Neither Satan nor
demons nor Beast nor false prophet nor evil men will be able to
touch the cityof God, which is his saints. To troubled saintsJohn
promises total absence of anxietyover persecutionsuch as looms on
the horizon of the old earth.
The huge dimensions of the city do not mean that it has to be
large to hold all the saints so much as theymean that all the saints,
whom the city represents,will amount to an astronomicallyhigh
number. Twelve thousand stadia long, wide, and high (21:16), the
city is reminiscentof the twelve thousand fromeach of the twelve
tribesof Israel, especially since the cubical shape of the citymakes
twelve edges of twelve thousand stadia each, coming to a total of
144,000, just as in the case of the Israelites (7:1-8; 14:1-5). In ch. 7
John heard about Israelites, but when he actually saw them they
turned out to be an innumerable company of the redeemed from
all nations, tribes, and languages (vv 9-17) just as he had earlier
heard about a lion but saw it to be a lamb (ch. 5). So also the
multipliedtwelvethousands of stadia, thoughnumbered, represent
the innumerabilityof the saints. Sufferersnaturally tend to think
of themselvesas few, oftenas even alone. John aims to liftthe suf-
fering saints out of their sense of isolation by pointing to the
immense number of the redeemed.7

7 Since in ch. 7 the Israelites are not the saved of the OT, but the international
church of the NT, the names of the Israelite tribes inscribed on the pearly gates
of the New Jerusalem do not stand forthe saved of the OT, but forthe NT church
of the apostles, whose names are correspondinglyinscribed on the twelve founda-
tion stones of the New Jerusalem.
 THE NEW JERUSALEM: PEOPLE, NOT PLACE 261

As is well known, the cubical shape of the citymatches the shape

of the Holy of holies in the tabernacle and temple (1 Kgs 6:20) and
means that the perfectedsaints will be God's most sacred dwelling
place, the inmost room of his new creation, the ultimate in-group
of people who are presentlyoutsiders because they have come out
of Babylon so as not to share in her sins (see Rev 18:4).8 For the
encouragementof these outsiders,theircoming cubical shape turns
thingsoutside in. Thus the whole of the cityhas the gloryof God
because the whole of the city is the holy of holies, filledwith the
glory of his presence.9
Now at outs with the world, the saints are sufferingpoverty. So
in addition to the promise already given of landed property(the
new earth),John promisesthe saintsincalculable wealth of precious
stones and precious metal. Again we should resist the temptation
to spiritualize, and should give the text a materialistic reading
agreeable withthe earthlylocale of the New Jerusalem and withthe
saints' need of a compensation appropriateto theirpresentmaterial
poverty.Such a reading may sound crass to those of us whose intel-
lectual ears Plato attuned to the abstractmusic of the spheres (and,
ironically,whose physicalbodies enjoy more phenomenal comforts
than he could have imagined), but historical-grammaticalsen-
sitivitydrives us to that reading. And the strongOT emphasis on
material prosperityin the time of salvation combines with the OT
flavor of Revelation to support it (see, e.g., Isa 60:9, 17; 61:6).
The wall of the city is made of jasper, the gates of pearls, the
foundationstones of differentgems, the cityof pure gold, even its
streetsof pure gold. The city's wealth means the saints' wealth.10
The harlot Babylon, too, was adorned withmaterial wealth of gold
and gems and pearls (17:4). But the gems of the New Jerusalem are

8
Cf. John 8:23; 15:18-19; 17:14, 16.
9 Cf. Gal 2:9; 1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:16-7:1; Eph 2:19-22; 1 Tim
3:15; Heb 3:1-6; 1 Pet 2:4-10; 4:17 on the churchas a temple;also 1QS 5:5-6;
8:4-10; 9:3-6 on the community at Qumran as a temple; and for discussion,
McKelvey,New Temple46-53, 92-139.
10 Since the non-overcomers in 3:17-18 were materially wealthy in this world,
the "gold refinedby fire" that Christ advised them to buy may stand forspiritual
wealth. On the other hand, that text may imply, not present spiritual wealth in
place of present material wealth, but future material wealth in place of present
material wealth; forwhite garments, which there stand parallel with refinedgold,
had recentlycarried a futuristic(and apparently materialisticas well as symbolic)
referencein 3:5, and the shame of nakedness (also in 3:17-18) seemed to have in
view the last judgment, not the present time.
262 ROBERT H. GUNDRY

crystal clear, her pearls white, her gold like pure glass, like
transparentglass (21:11, 18, 21). In otherwords, the eternalwealth
of the saints will be untainted and perfectlypure of Babylonian
selfishness,greed, dishonesty,and oppression. The wealth will be
pure of such evils because the saints themselves, whom this
bejeweled city of gold represents,will be pure of such evils.
And just as the cityis God's tabernacle, he and the Lamb are the
templeof the city(21:22). Ordinarily,God dwells in the temple and
the temple is located in the city. Here, he and the Lamb are the
temple, so that the city, since it is the cubically shaped Holy of
holies, is located in the temple-a strikingreversal which means
that the saints will dwell in God and the Lamb just as God and the
Lamb will dwell in them. We can see the correctnessof this deduc-
tion by glancing at 3:12, where in reference to "the New
Jerusalem" Christ promises to make overcomers pillars "in the
temple of my God," which in view of 21:22 we should read as "the
temple that is my God" (genitive of apposition).
We mightcompare the reciprocal indwellingof God, the Lamb,
and the saintsin thefuturistic eschatologyof the New Jerusalemwith
the reciprocal indwelling of God, his Son, and believers in the
realizedeschatologyofJohn 14-17. Similarly,we mightcontrastthe
eternaldaylightof the New Jerusalem with not having the light in
oneself at the presenttime according to John 11:10. The thoughtis
at least as much that the lightof lifewill shine in the saints as that
they will walk in its light.
By the same token, the river of the water of life (22:2) does not
flow beside the city or even throughit fromouter source to outer
destination,as in old Babylon. Rather, it wells up withinthe city,
coming from the throne of God and the Lamb, who indwell the
cubical cityof superlativeholinessjust as the pillar-likecityof 3:12
indwells God and the Lamb." And suitablyto the size of the city,
i.e. to the huge number of the saints, the fountain mentioned in
21:6 has swollen to a river; and the single tree of lifein the Garden
of Eden, mentionedearlier at 2:7, has multipliedinto a pluralityof
specimens lining the river and yieldingfruitevery month, without
seasonal interruption.Plenty of water forplentyof trees to supply
plentyof lifeforall the saints no matterhow many theywill be and
no matterhow tenuous theirpresentlives and livelihoods. Even the

11 Cf. John4:14b; 7:38.

 THE NEW JERUSALEM:PEOPLE, NOT PLACE 263
leaves of the tree will be used as a poultice for the healing of the
nations of redeemed peoples who make up the New Jerusalem;
John promises eternal good health for their resurrectedbodies-
preventativemedicine to the utmost (cf. 20:4-6).
But what shall we make of elements in the text that seem to
distinguishthe New Jerusalem fromthe saints?12 The city cannot
be the bride, the church, can it, because 21:2 compares the city to
a bride ("prepared as a bride adorned for her husband")? More
accurately, however, 21:2 does not compare the city itselfto a
bride; it compares the preparation of the city to the adornment of a
bride forher husband. This comparison leads naturallyand with-
out contradictionto an identificationof the cityitselfwiththe bride,
the Lamb's wife, several verses later (21:9).
But how can the saintsbe the citywhen 21:7 says theywill inherit
it? On the contrary, 21:7 says they will inherit "these things,"
which more naturallyrefersto the "all things" made new in 21:5,
to inheritwhich thingsthe saints come down as the New Jerusalem.
Above all, however, does not the portrayalof the New Jerusalem
as a place throughwhose lightthe nations will walk and into which
the kings of the earth will bring the gloryand honor of the nations
(21:24-26) point to a citythatis the saints' residenceratherthan the
saints themselves?Does not thispassage even reflectthe sometimes
millennial notion of Jerusalem as capital city of the world and as
occupied by regathered Israel while the Gentiles live outside?
Perhaps so originally,but not in the presentcontextof Revelation.
For here the unbelieving nations and kings of the earth have met
their doom in the lake of fire. The ones who were redeemed from
those nations have now become the nations of the new earth. And
because theyrule it (22:5), theyhave become the new kings of the
earth, all of them, whole nations of kings. The political side of the
promise here complements the economic side.
To be outside the city, then, is not to be outside it on earth. It
means to be on earth not at all; rather,in the lake of fire. For the
city is the saints, the royalized nations of the redeemed who
populate the whole of the new earth. There is no room foranyone
else. Just as the plural noun "peoples" shiftedin referencefrom
unbelievers(7:9; cf. 5:9) to the saints(21:3), so also the plural noun

12
See esp. E. S. Fiorenza, Priesterfiir
Gott(NTAbh NF 7; Miinster: Aschen-
dorff,1972) 348-350.
264 ROBERTH. GUNDRY

"nations" has made the same shift."1 As nationsof kingsrather

thankingsofnations,thesaintshave finallyfulfilled God's original
commissionto "be fruitful and multiply and filltheearthand sub-
due it and ruleover...everylivingthingthatmoveson theearth"
(Gen 1:28). As oftenin apocalyptic,EndzeitrecapturesUrzeit.
"Bring into it [i.e., intothe city]" is spatiallanguage,but the
meaningis non-spatial, just as thedimensionsofthecityare spatial
buttheirmeaningnon-spatial.So itis falseto inferthat"bringinto
it" meansthatkingsand nationsdwelloutsideand come and go,
just as it is falseto inferthatthe citycovers144,000,000square
stadiaofearthbutnotthewholeearthor thatthe144,000Israelites
do not encompassthe innumerablemultitude.The meaningof
"bring intoit" has to do withthe gloryand honorof the saintly
nationsof kingsthatmake up the city,not withunsaintlytraffic
fromcountryside intocity.Johnimmediately adds 21:27 to guard
a
against misunderstanding of the lattersort: "and therewillnot
enterintoitanything uncleanor anyonewhopracticesabomination
and lying,but onlythosewho are writtenin the Lamb's book of
life." To enterthecityis to helpmakeit up-and thereis nothing
aboutleavingitoncethegloryand honorhavebeenbroughtin. To
the contrary,see 3:12 again: the overcomer"will not go outside
any more."14
Nothingis leftoverinJohn'sdescriptionofthe New Jerusalem
thatwould requireour enlargingthe referentof the symbol.We
may therefore concludewithfair assurancethatJohnwantedhis
Christianreaders,who had barelybegun to sufferthe severityof
persecutionthathe expectedto come on them,to see in the New
Jerusalem,not theirfuturedwellingplace, but-what was even
moreheartening-theirfutureselvesand state.

13 Cf. Leonard Thompson's"softboundaries"in "The MythicUnityof the

Apocalypse,"SBL 1985 Seminar Papers(Atlanta:ScholarsPress, 1985) 21-24.
14 The foregoingparagraphshouldbe set againstinterpretations of Rev 21:1-
22:5 tendingtowarduniversalsalvation(see, e.g., Thiising,"Vision," 22-23,n.
12, 33, and esp. Fiorenza, Priester,
359), thoughwe mightwish that the text
teachessuch a doctrine.