A Semiotic
Analysis of the "New Jerusalem" in the Book of Revelation
A Semiotic
Analysis of the "New Jerusalem" © 2003, M. Locker. All rights reserved
Undeniably, especially the last book
of the New Testament, the Book of Revelation, has been subjected to so many
different treatments and interpretations, yet without any consensus in sight,
that this most powerful writing has been rendered almost useless for the
Christian believer. In the opinion of this author, this difficulty in
interpreting the Book of Revelation is rooted in the very nature of its
profoundly symbolic language, causing exegetes to disagree about the religious
and historical origin of Revelation’s symbols[1]
and interpreting them in fundamentally different ways.[2]
Semiotics,[3]
the scientific study of signs as systematized by Charles Sanders Peirce
(1839-1914)[4] shows that
signs in a sign-system, like a biblical text or book, can be interpreted in
three very different ways, depending on the relationship to the object they
represent [5]
First, the exegete can assume that a sign has no physical relationship to the object it signifies,[6] like for example, a national flag symbolizes a country. These signs, called symbols can only be understood by associating their meaning.[7] So can, for example, the woman clothed with the sun in Rev 12 obtain the symbolic meaning of the people of Israel, the Christian Church, or the entire People of God.[8]
Second, the exegete can treat a sign
as an index. An index is in some way physically connected to the object it
represents.[9] For example,
smoke calls attention to the existence of fire. John himself makes use of
indexical references as he describes Satan as great dragon and old serpent (Rev
12:3. 7ff), thus correlating Satan with the ferocious and evil nature of
these creatures.
Third, the interpreter can believe
that a sign is the icon of the object it describes. An icon almost fully
represents the physical nature of the object it signifies.[10]
For example, the merchants in Rev 18:3. 11. 15. 23 are icons of real tradesman
in the Roman Empire during the time of John, and as early as the 4th
century, the woman clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet was identified
with Mary the mother of God.[11]
The difference in interpreting
Revelation’s symbols, therefore, rests in the exegetes’ choice, whether the
sign in study is regarded a symbol, an index or an icon. For example, assuming
that Armageddon in Rev 16:16 is an index will necessitate the search for the
geographical place Armageddon points to.[12] Seeing it as a symbol will suggest to the
exegete to prefer an interpretation that sees Armageddon as symbolic number
riddle, or Zahlenrätsel. As such, it
could signify the punishment of Gomorrah (Gen 19:24) and of Cain in Nod (Gen
4:16).[13]
In order to address and ultimately
to prevent these difficulties of entering into the study of the “New
Jerusalem,” the analysis proposed in this paper must be able to assert in what
semiotic way (association, correlation, identification) the New Jerusalem
obtains its meaning. Text based criteria must allow the exegete to decide
whether this sign in Revelation should be interpreted as symbol, index or icon.
Ultimately, what appears to be the
most promising method to study Revelation’s symbols is semiotic analysis.[14]
This method studies signs from all their four major perspectives. First, it
observes that signs are organized into codes
that describe their position and selection in a given context.[15]
For Revelation, these codes are the larger and smaller parts of the book, like
the letters of the seven churches in Asia Minor (chs. 2 &3) and the visions
of John. Consequently, the first step of this analysis is to locate and to
describe the frequency of the use of the same sign in the specific code of its
occurrence.
The
second step is syntagmatic analysis,
which tries to describe the relationships of the symbol to other significant
signs in the same code. It describes and delineates the semantic field within
which the symbol is used revealing the rules and conventions underlying the
production and interpretation of tests. Syntagmatic analysis studies the grammar
or surface structure of texts.
The third step, paradigmatic analysis, studies the symbol according to its sense
(Sinn) and reference (Bedeutung) as a sign,[16]
already known and used in literature, earlier as well as contemporary to the
text. Paradigmatic analysis makes use of lexica, encyclopedias and commentaries
and attempts to work out a general meaning (Erklärung) of the sign. For the
signs of Revelation that means the study of their use in the Hebrew Scripture
and extra-biblical writings.
For this step, however, Ludwig
Wittgenstein’s notion of obsolescence of old language-games must be kept in
mind.[17]
For Wittgenstein, language and its signs have meaning only because of their
continuous contextual use.[18]
Thus signs used in a new context, only partially draw upon their previous
meaning.
Because of the above limitations of
paradigmatic
analysis, the most important step in semiotic analysis will be the study of
the pragmatics of signs. Pragmatic
analysis refers to the active relationship between the sign and its
interpreter. According to Peirce, the most significant effect of a sign on the
interpreter is its dynamical interpretant (4.536), which can be emotional,
energetic, or logical (5.475). Whereas the emotional interpretant remains on
the level of feelings, the energetic interpretant involves concrete actions
that taken together form a habit that constitutes the dynamical interpretant
(5.400). Habits form a belief that determines when and how we shall act.
The pragmatic interpretation of
signs, therefore, asks two questions. First, whom do the signs of Revelation address and second, how and in what way do these
symbols influence their interpreters, causing them to enact their belief?[19]
The first reference to the New
Jerusalem is found in the letter to the church of Philadelphia (Rev 3:7-13).
Already this early in Revelation, Christians are introduced to the New
Jerusalem as part of Christ’s promise for their endurance and perseverance
against the temptations of the Synagogue of Satan. Remaining victorious in this sense, Christians will become
everlasting pillars of the temple of God (Rev 3:12) onto which the name of the
city of Christ’s God is inscribed. The city itself is qualified as “which comes
down from my God out of heaven” (Rev 3:12).
Next
to an indirect reference to the New Jerusalem as the wife of the Lamb in 19:7,
the holy city is mentioned in the final vision-auditions of the Seer (Rev
21:1-22:5). In a new and final creation, John sees the holy city as the bride
of the Lamb,[20] coming down
from heaven, (Rev 21:2) and hears a voice from God’s throne saying that “the
dwelling place of God is with men” (Rev 21:3).
In
this final vision of Revelation, John is brought by the Spirit to a high
mountain where he is shown the holy city Jerusalem, now only called the wife of
the lamb (Rev 21:9), coming down out of heaven to earth (Rev 21:10). John’s
very detailed description of the city is followed by his observation that he
does not see a temple in the city (Rev 21:22). Significantly, it is John
himself and not an angel, who explains his observation: “for (gár) its
temple is the Lord and the Lamb” (Rev 21:22). In vv. 23-27, the Seer further
continues to describe his vision of the New Jerusalem. Finally the angel shows
John how the throne of God gives life to the city (Rev 22:1-2), and, once more,
the Seer continues to tell about the new city (Rev 22:3-5).
The reference to the New Jerusalem
in the letter to Philadelphia (Rev 3:12) is not part of a vision, but an Überwinderspruch containing the promise
of making the one who remains victorious in the tribulation a pillar in the
temple of God. Becoming a permanent part of the temple, wholly dedicated to God
whose name will be written upon him, the victorious Christian becomes a citizen
of the New Jerusalem.[21]
Indeed, since all Überwindersprüche
allude to the New City[22],
and in 21:7 the promise to conquer is once more related to it, the New
Jerusalem must be seen as the unifying theme of the entire book.
Chapter 21 begins by asserting that
Isaiah’s prophecy (“For behold I create new heavens and new earth…” in Isa
65:17), as well as the promise of the 6th Überwinderspruch have become true. A loud voice from the throne
asserts that God’s dwelling place is with men (Rev 21:3). But unlike it has
been prophesized in Isa 43:19, God does not declare that he is making new
things, but that he is making all things new. This implies renovation, rather
than new creation.”[23]
Indeed, God himself declares that through the words of Revelation (Rev 21:5;
22:6) and Christ’s true and reliable witness (Rev 3:13; 19:9. 11) and final
victory “all has been transformed” (“gégonan”
in Rev 21:6).[24] Like it was
promised in Isa 55:1 and Rev 7:17, the thirsty will be given water of life, and
the victorious shall inherit Jerusalem (Rev 21:6; 22:17).
One
of the seven angels who had the seven bowls shows John Jerusalem, “the bride
and wife of the lamb” (Rev 21:9). The New City that has come out of heaven (Rev
21:2.10) symbolizes the glory and presence of God through her radiance like a
jasper (Rev 21:11, cf. 4:3), her measurements (Rev 21:15-17) and her ornaments
and jewelry (Rev 21:18-20). This description of the New Jerusalem, alluding to
the Old Testament prophecies of Ezekiel 40-84 and Isaiah 60-62,[25]
is inspired by the cities of Babylon and Rome.[26]
Jerusalem is described by references to the description of Babylon based on
Ezekiel.[27]
John’s explanation of his surprising
observation that there is no temple in the city, 21:22, once more follows his
Isaiah source (Isa 60:19-21), by saying that God, the Almighty and the Lamb,
are its temple and therefore the city has no need for sun or moon. The Seer’s
description of the nature of the city (Rev 21:24-27; 22:3-5) is interrupted as
the angel shows him the river and the tree of life that are in the city (Rev
22:1-3). Finally the Seer concludes with the statement that the servants of God
shall reign forever and ever (Rev 22:5). In conclusion, one can see John’s
elaborate attempt to describe the New Jerusalem as a place that at one and the
same time contrasts the cities of Babylon and Rome and alludes to paradise, the
holy city and the temple.
Jerusalem comes from heaven down to
earth. Therefore, it can be assumed that it is both, a symbol and an index. The
heavenly Jerusalem, based on Isaiah’s prophecies (Isa 52 and 62) is the
“symbol” for the assurance that the Christian’s final destiny rests with God.[28]
At the same the city that John sees arriving on earth (Rev 21:10) must be seen
as an “index” contrasting earthy cities, thus signifying the Christian community.[29]
Being called out of Rome is being called into the holy city. This call is partially accomplished by the
strict ethical demand not to participate in the sins of Rome and the Roman
Empire. Sin not only prevents one from entering the city by its gates (Rev
22:14), but condemns a person to the second and final death (Rev 20:12-15;
21:8).
This call is too fulfilled by
hypomonē| (Rev 1:9; 2:2. 3. 19; 3: 10; 14:12). In the time of Revelation, however,
tribulation very seldom resulted in physical persecution and death. Thus, a
true Christian life of endurance and witness could not merely have meant the
passive acceptance of near death. It is
the active search for the realization of an alternative[30]
that is the New Jerusalem.
The importance of the symbol/index
of the New Jerusalem is its implicit quest for a new Christian community here
and now, for now is the kairòs (Rev 1:3).[31]
Understanding the New Jerusalem as present reality signifies that God’s
dwelling on earth will truly be accomplished in a new and transformed world. In
that sense, “amēn, érchou kúrie Iēsou” in 22:20 expresses a
wish that can only become true if the words of Revelation’s prophecy have been
fulfilled.
A
semiotic analysis of the New Jerusalem shows a symbolic dynamism, i.e.,
movement from heaven to earth, similar to the Seer’s analysis of the sign-world
of evil, where he sees Satan’s defeat in heaven leading to his manifestation on
earth (Rev 12: 7-18). Thus, the New Jerusalem coming from heaven onto earth
must be interpreted as symbol and as index. The, in reference of the
preexisting meaning of the New Jerusalem, new indexical interpretation of this
sign as city-like community of Christians represents the Christian witness to
Christ here on earth. Following Jesus, the Lamb to the New Jerusalem is the risk of faith resisting the
seductive structure of evil here on earth, thus consequently incurring
socio-economic exile that includes poverty and even the physical threat of
death. However, John stresses that true Christian prophecy guarantees eternal
life.
Witness to God and Christ is a path
of righteous activities intending to unmask evil and its structures. Through
prayer and living such witness seeks and pursues the actualization of the New
Jerusalem as the basileia tou theou, i.e. the building of a new
society.
The following paragraphs study the
pragmatic significance (motivation of the sign) of the New Jerusalem as ‘index’ signifying a city- or community-like reality here and now.
“I saw a new heaven and a new earth”
(Rev 21:1)
After
God’s final judgment of all evil, John sees a new heaven and a new earth. He
explains that the first heaven and the first earth and the sea have passed away
(Rev 21:1). Exegetes make here two
assertions. The first is that John introduces the theme of new creation,
because the old creation is incomplete and the new one will be complete.[32]
This ought to be supported by the observation that Rev 21:1 is an allusion to
Isa 65:17 that reads: “there will be a new heaven and a new earth, and they
will by no means remember the former.”[33]
This
paper contests both assertions by seeing in them a tautology based on the
prejudice that the first creation, in fact, is incomplete. This belief,
however, not only contradicts the teachings of the torah stating that all creation is good (cf. Gen 1:4. 10. 12. 18.
21. 25), but also discounts what Revelation says about the resurrection of
Christ. Christ, the first-borne of the
death reigns over the kings of ‘this’ earth (Rev 1:5) and wants Christians to
reign on ‘this’ earth (Rev 5:10).
Understanding the motif of the
absence of death and the passing away of the former things as allusions to Isa
25:28 and Isa 65:17, equally does not prove that the new earth signifies
paradise.[34] For
Revelation death does not only refer to the universal human experience of dying
(Rev 1:5), but to the moral death Christians experience through the presence of
the beast (cf. Rev 11:8; 14:13).
Rev
22:1 is the cornerstone of the semiotic analysis of the New Jerusalem. As shown
above, John’s symbols must be understood by referring to their binary
opposition. The old heaven was the heaven before Christ’s death and
resurrection; the new heaven is what John sees now: Satan, the old serpent has
been defeated and was cast out (cf. “àrchaios” Rev 12:9; 22;2 vis-à-vis
“kainos” in Rev 21:1).
As the New Jerusalem comes down out
of heaven God announces: “Behold, I make all [things] kainos, and”…”all
has been become true” (Rev 21:5f; cf. 17:16). It is because of Christ’s death
and resurrection that evil has been finally defeated. All Christians who truly
give witness to God and Christ shall live in God’s presence here and now on a
new earth.
Apparently,
John draws here parallels to Paul’s theology in 2 Cor 5:17: “Therefore, if any
one is in Christ, he is a new creation; behold the old has passed away, the new
has come,” as well as in Gal 6:15; Col 3:10. However, whereas the new heaven is
indeed a symbol for Christ’s victory, the new earth has additionally an
indexical and iconic signification of “earth’s real possibilities.”[35]
“katabáinō” and “anabáinō”
(Rev 21:2. 10)
Two observations with respect of the
motif of katabáinō indicate that John envisions the New Jerusalem
as indexical reality that, though sent by God, will come down on earthy through
the collaboration of human deeds. First, even though repeatedly stating that
God threw Satan to earth, in Rev 12:12 the Seer uses the active aorist form of katabáinō,
indicating that Satan himself took active part in coming down on earth to make
war against the Church (Rev 12:12.17). On earth, it is Satan who gives the
first beast his power and throne (“endōken” in Rev 13:2), while the
second beast exercises the power of the first beast in his presence (“poei”
in Rev 13:12). Both the power of the beast and the whore’s seduction to wealth and
riches causes all who engage in trade and commerce with the minions of Satan to
mark themselves (dōsin aútois) with the mark of the beast (Rev
13:16f). Ultimately, the reader of Revelation must conclude that Satan can
fully establish his reign on earth only because of human support and
collaboration.
In
a similar way, the same paradox is expressed through the active mode of anabáinō
in Rev 4:1 and 11:12.[36]
Though Christ’s death and resurrection save all Christians, they still have to
actively seek and pursue through righteous deeds their entering into heaven
(cf. Rev 20:12).
Thus,
when John, once more employs the active aorist form of thus important verb, describing the holy city coming down
out of heaven, it has to be assumed that the Seer envisions that the city comes
down to the plane of actual human history and human action. Although sent by God, her becoming an
earthly reality can only be fulfilled by way of human collaboration.
This
certainty does not mean that the earthly presence of the New Jerusalem can be
accomplished through human endeavor alone. However, it stresses John’s theo-pragmatic view that good and evil are embedded in human participation.
Another,
though, indirect support for this interpretation is found in Rev 19:8. Though
the cloth of fine, clean linen is given to the wife of the Lamb, she actively
participates in putting it on, (peribálētai, middle voice).[37]
The second part of this verse explaining the linen as the righteous deed of the
saints[38],
draws yet another parallel to Jerusalem’s contrast index, that is Babylon.[39]
Fine linen (bussinon) is not only the cloth of the wife of the Lamb, but
also one of the garments of Babylon (Rev 18:16).
In this sense
righteous deeds and judgement (cf. “dikaiōmata” in Rev 15:4)
are not only the required deeds for eternal life (cf. “èrga“in Rev
20:13) but the actions that will bring about the establishment of a true
Christian society here on earth.
“the dwelling of God is with men” (Rev 21:3)
While
the beast rising out of the sea opens its mouth to blaspheme the name and tent
of God (Rev 13:6), in the vision of the new heaven and the new earth, God says;
“Behold the tent of God is with men, and he shall dwell (skēnōsei)
with them” (Rev 21:3). Again, any Old Testament allusion[40]
to Rev 21:3 would support to see in the New Jerusalem a mere symbolic
reality. However also this time, John
continues to introduce his new indexical use of the New Jerusalem. While
Ezekiel 37:27 and Lev 26:11f address the Israelites (“oikos Israēl”
in Eze 37:21 and “huioi Israēl” in Lev 25:55),[41]
the Seer hears God speaking: “ìdou ē skēnē tou theou meata
tōn anthrōpōn” (Rev 21:3).
John’s uses anthrōpos in
no other place in Revelation to connote Christians in heaven. This suggests
understanding anthrōpos
as an icon that signifies human beings on earth.[42]
In due course, if the New Jerusalem is God’s dwelling place among mortals, then
John envisions an earthly reality.
The tent of God is the Jerusalem
that has come down from the heaven onto earth. God’s tent is the index of an
earthly reality. By way of a theological connection with Jn 1:14, “kai
eskēnōsen én hēmin” and the revelation of Christ’s
glory on earth (Rev 21:23, cf. Jn 2:11), this index points to an encounter
every genuine Christian community has to seek (cf. Mt 18:20).
“He who conquers shall have this
heritage” (Rev 21:7)
The voice from the throne
repeating the promise to those who remain victorious (cf. Rev 2:7. 11. 17. 26f;
3: 5. 12. 21) speaks about the heritage (klēronomeō) that is
the New Jerusalem. In the same way God
has promised Abraham the fulfillment of the covenant through the prosperity of
the nation of Israel, cf. “klēronomēsai” “klhronomh/sai” in Gen
15:7, and Moses the inheritance of the promised land (“klēronomēsēs
tēn gēn” in Ex 23:20); both earthly realities.
“I will show you the Bride, the wife
of the Lamb” (Rev 21:9)
When
John sees the New Jerusalem coming out of heaven, he describes her as the bride
(“numphe” in 21:3) of the Lamb.
Later in the same chapter an angel invites John to see again the bride
of the Lamb (Rev 21:9). But this time the angel also calls her the wife (gunē,)
of the Lamb.
In
view of John’s contrasting sign worlds the reader can conclude toward the
nature and significance of the sign of the New Jerusalem. While in heaven, the holy city is the symbol
for eternal life, on earth she is an index that contrasts the woman Babylon.
Both are not only called gunē,, but like
wives, are adorned with gold, jewels and pearls (Rev 17:4; 18:16 « 21:11. 18. 19. 21) and wear
white linen (Rev 18:16 « 19:7). While
the mystery of the woman Babylon is that she is the index of a city that
manifests systemic evil (Rev 17:8), the mystery of the wife of the Lamb is her
being the index that signifies a city-like earthly Christian community.
“and they will reign (basileúsousin)
forever and ever” (Rev
22:5)
“and made us a kingdom (basileían),
priests. . . for ever” (Rev
1:6)
“you have made them to be a kingdom
(basileían) and priests serving our God, and they will reign
on earth (tēs gēs)” (Rev
5:10)
Those
who are meant to reign in the New Jerusalem are all who are sealed by God on
their foreheads and thus reign as priests. In Rev 1:6 the hearers of the book
are told that because of Christ’s death and resurrection Christians were made a
kingdom and priests. Epoiēsen, the indicative aorist of poiéō,
describes like the perfect historicum
something being fulfilled or accomplished in the past.[43]
Poiéō, therefore, followed by the double accusative (basileían,
hiereis)
stresses the fact that someone was actually made into something.[44]
This
observation stresses a present reading of basileúsousin in Rev 5:10. Both times in Rev 1:6 and in
Rev 5:10, John describes an earthly reality (“ho archōv
tōnbasiléōn tēs gēs” in Rev 1:6 and “épi tēs
gēs” in Rev 5:10).[45]
For this paper this evidence is convincing enough to dismiss any interpretation
that sees in “kai basileúsousin eis tous aiōnas tōn
aiōnōn” (Rev 25:5) the
future- eschatological priesthood of eschatological priests.[46]
In
the same way the above discussed themes suggest the New Jerusalem to be a
reality of “here and now,” the vision-audition unit of Rev 21:1-22:5 offers
some indications regarding the form and function of the New Jerusalem.
“the sea was no more” (Rev 21:1)
Satan,
thrown onto earth, places himself on the sand, i.e., shore, of the sea (Rev
12:18), out of which the first beast rises (Rev 13:1). In this sense, the sea
symbolizes the source out of which evil can manifest itself.[47]
The absence of the sea in the new creation (Rev 21:1) must be interpreted in
the way that in the New Jerusalem, Satan and his representatives will not find
any systems of domination and exploitation that are able to give power to them.
“And he who talked to me had a
measuring rod of gold” (Rev 21:15)
The
angel’s measure is an index for the standards of the city (cf. Rev 21:12-14;
18-21), which are exclusively based on God’s commands (Rev 11:1f). The square
shape of the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:6) is likewise an index for “the grid street
pattern found so often in Greek and Roman urban areas,”[48]
signifying that this place ought to be “incomparably better than any Roman
city.”[49]
All that is imperfect in Rome shall be brought into “human perfection”[50]
in the new dwelling place of the Lord.
“I saw no temple in her [the city],” (Rev 21:22)
The
surprising[51] absence of
the temple, and its direct replacement by God and the Lamb, illustrate the
immediacy of the presence God in the new city. Although the New Jerusalem, like
all human societies must have a “role for institutions,”[52]
God and the Lamb are the only source of light and life in the city. There is no
need for any other institution representing or acting in behalf of God (cf. Mt
18:20).
With
some difficulty, the absence of the temple can be explained as allusion to the
Old Testament.[53] However it
seem more likely that John, once more, creates here a contrast to his
contemporary society.[54] Whereas in Pergamum, Satan dwells on his
throne (Rev 2:13),[55]
in the new Christian society socio-religious institutions cannot be used as
instruments of power that support and represent evil.[56]
Although God’s/the Lamb’s throne is in the city (Rev 22:2f.), God/Lamb do not
depend (cf. Rev 21:23) on any institutionalized intermediary.
“Its gates shall never be shut by day” (Rev 21:25)
The
motif of open doors is found in Isa 60:11a. While exegetes are puzzled over the
fact that John might have wrongly cited the Old Testament[57],
this paper believes that John deliberately changed this symbol into an index in
order to contrast the system of the beast (cf. “ei mē ho échōn to
charagma” in Rev 13:17). Accordingly, a contextual reading of Rev 21:25
sees in Jerusalem’s open doors an index that signifies an openness that
contrasts the system of Rome’s domination (cf. “kai hina
mē tis dunētai agorásin” in Rev 13:17).[58]
“I will give from the fountain of
the water of life without payment” (Rev
21:6; [22:1.17])
A
similar opposition of the New Jerusalem to the system of the whore of Babylon
is found in the index of the water of life that flows from the throne of God in
the New City. The water of life
symbolizes God’s gift[59]
(“dōreán” in Rev 21:6) but too contrasts the false gifts of the
beast (“hina dōsin autois cháragma” in Rev 13:16) that support Rome
(Rev 18).
Alongside such interpretation is the
invitation for all Christians in tribulation to heed the prophecy of the book
(Rev 22:17). The present Christian community should be able to invite into a
place where the water of life is not a luxury item available only for the
wealthy (cf. Rev 18:12f), but for all who thirst.[60]
In
conclusion one can see that the indices within the index of the New Jerusalem
signify and form a systematic theo-pragmatic outline or ‘symbolical blueprint’
of how the present earthly Christian community must be.[61]
The
basic tenor of Revelation’s chapters 2 and 3 is to exhort Christians neither to
follow the teachings of the Nicolaitans (Rev 2:6. 15),[62]
nor of the false prophets Balaam (Rev 2:14) and Jezebel (Rev 2:20). They advertise idolatry and immorality,
i.e., the participation in the imperial cult. John strongly opposes such
position, being aware a refusal to join the worship of the pagan gods will, or
has already, cause powerlessness (Rev 3:8) and poverty (Rev 2:9) and
persecution of Christians.
Those churches, however, that
already to some extent follow the false teachings of the Nicolaitans are urged
to repent and to do the works they did at first (Rev 2:4).[63]
They must remember what they received and heard (Rev 3:3).
These
references to what John suggest to be the proper Christian lifestyle could
refer to the decree on the sacrifice of idols, at the Jerusalem council.[64]
They too point to the wider ethical consequences of “einer ursprünglich guten
Gottes und Christusbeziehung der Gemeinde.”[65]
In this sense, the communities are admonished to return to their “’first
agape.’ This is the brotherly and sisterly love or the solidarity that [held]
the community together from the beginning.”[66]
The
answer to what caused some of the Christians to compromise their faith in
Christ and their solidarity with the Christian community is given in chapters
13, 17 and 18 of Revelation.
Christians
sacrifice to idols and the pagan gods, not because they have lost their faith
in Christ and returned to paganism, but because these sacrifices allow them to
join the Roman economic associations and trade guilds,[67]
and thus to become rich and wealthy citizens (cf. Rev 18:3. 9. 15. 19). For
John this participation in the Roman socio-economic system constitutes a
twofold evil.
First,
it compromises the sovereignty of God, who alone must be given honor and glory
(Rev 4:8ff) and second, it tempts Christians to amass wealth and riches (Rev
18:11-13) for a life in luxury (Rev 18:9). Such a life will not only support
grave social injustice (cf. Rev 18:13), but prevent knowledge and faith (Rev
3:18 and Jn 9:39).[68]
Additionally,
participating in the Roman patron-client system will make Christians guilty of
the sins (cf. Mt 18:7) brought about by the systemic evil (Rev 18:4) of the
Roman Empire. Although Rome’s sins have to do primarily with idol worship,[69]
they are also a synonym for social sin. The New Jerusalem is a place where
Christians, in contrast to a world of idolatry and economical domination,[70]
can live in a society “in which everyone [because of the renunciation of riches
and beauty] is able to enjoy the beauty of gold and gems that the rich had
hoarded for themselves.”[71]
Summary
The
foregoing semiotic analysis of the New Jerusalem has shown that John operates
with binary oppositions. Thus, the New Jerusalem, like all of Revelation’s
signs are given meaning and significance not only by way of alluding to the
Hebrew Scriptures, but foremost because of the contrast they describe.
Second,
John presents the New Jerusalem in heaven, where it is a symbol and has
symbolic significance for the readers of Revelation. In heaven, Jerusalem, the
bride of the Lamb (Rev 21:2. 9) signifies ‘eternal life,’ to which all who die
for the word of God and whose name is written in the Book of Life are invited.
But as John sees the city coming down on earth, the symbol of Jerusalem changes
its significance becoming the index of an earthly city contrasting
earthly cities like Rome and Babylon.
Conclusion
The
pragmatic analysis of Revelation’s symbol/index of the New Jerusalem shows that
this image stimulates an interpretation
on three literary levels of the book (heaven / descent / earth). Thus, the New
Jerusalem has a threefold effect on its readers. On the heavenly level, it
specifies the content and meaning of Christian faith and calls for firmness in
the conviction that God/Christ alone is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. On
the level of the descent, it connects the content of faith to the reality of
Christian living, hereby motivating Christians to see how God and Satan dwell
on earth. On the earthly level it concretizes and calls for Christian action.
As
a heavenly reality, Jerusalem signifies a final dwelling place that God has
prepared and where all who gave true witness to his word will have a heavenly
shelter (Rev 7:14ff). Jerusalem as a place of divine order is the bride of the
Lamb who comes down onto earth in order to prepare for his arrival (Rev 21:2).
On earth the New Jerusalem has become the wife of the Lamb and the dwelling place of God (cf. Rev 19:7; 21:3.9). Consequently, in order to prepare for Christ’s final dwelling on earth, exploitation, domination and idolatry must be replaced by a transformation of the existing idolatrous order. Christians are called not only to distance themselves from the evil system, but also to actively seek its transformation into a living in equality that promotes social justice on the basis of faith and worship of the only true God (Rev 21:8).
[1]Whether
the symbol of the Lamb derives its meaning from astrology (the ram), the book
of Exodus (the Paschal Lamb), the prophet Isaiah (the Suffering Servant), or
from yet another apocalyptic tradition, has become a debate without resolution
in sight. Cf. Heinz
Giesen, Die Offenbarung Johannes: Übersetzt und Erklärt von Heinz Giesen.
RNT (Regensburg: Pustet, 1997), 164-166.
[2]A similar study on the symbol of the Lamb has been done by Markus E. Locker “The Lamb of Revelation in the Light of Peircean Semiotics,” Landas 16:1 (2002): 65-81.
[3]A summary of Peircean semiotics is presented
in Winfried Nöth, Handbook of Semiotics (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1995), 39-47. Much lighter, but well illustrated, is the introduction to
Peirce’s semiotics, presented by Paul Cobely and Litza Janz, Introducing
Semiotics (Cambridge: Icon Books, 1998)m 18-37. Also very informative is
the web page of Daniel Chandler, “Semiotics
for Beginners,” http://www.aber.ac.ut~dgc
/semitotics.html. 1997.
[4]Charles Sanders Peirce, Collected Papers, vols. I-VI, ed. By Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (Cambridge; Belknap , 1960), especially 3.359 – 3.364.
[5]Charles Sanders Peirce, the founder of the
classical sign theory explains:
“If we are able to reason about the objects in the world we must be able
to recognize similarities between one object and another. Such a process
requires the use of ‘icons’. But an icon, which of itself is a potential sign,
requires that there be an interpreter, who is able to take note of the features
of similarity. It is only by reason of the later process that generality enters
the sign process. But when generality enters, we have thirdness of law, so we
are concerned with symbols. However, the icon and the ‘symbol’ of themselves
are not sufficient, since neither of them indicates the subject of discourse.
‘Indices’ are needed to bring our attention to the objects to which the symbol
and its accompanying icon apply.”
Quoted in
John J. Fitzgerald, Peirce's Theory of
Signs as Foundation of Pragmatism (The Hague/Paris: Mouton & Co, 1966),
40.
[6]“A sign is a shared relation to the thing denoted and to the mind. If this threefold relation is
not of a ‘degenerate species,’ the sign is related to its object only as a result of an intellectual association, depending upon a habit assumed by the interpreter. Such signs are always abstract and general, because habits are general rules for the interpreter that are, for the most part, conventional or arbitrary. These signs are called symbols . . .” (3.361).
[7]This is the predominant interpretation of
images in Gregory Beal’s 1999 commentary on Revelation. The author says in the
introduction of his work: “It is important to realize that in the Apocalypse
some comparative figures of speech are intended as visual pictures needing
interpretation, while others are meant only to be perceived on a more abstract
level.” Gregory Beale, The Book of Revelation, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999),
57. This assessment is a reinforcement of Eugene Boring’s postulate, that
“symbols are not to be decoded into propositional language that refers to
objective realities, but are to be left as nonobjectifying pictorial language
that only points to ultimate reality but cannot describe it, since it
transcends our finite minds and cognitive categories of language.” M. Eugene
Boring, Revelation. Interpretation: A
Bible Commentary to the New Testament (Louisville: John Knox, 1989), 51-59.
[8]Heinz Giesen,
Offenbarung, 274f.
[9]“An index is a thing or fact that is a sign of its object by virtue of being factually connected with it. This factual connection forcibly imposes itself upon the mind of the interpreter” (4.447).
[10]“An icon, . . . in ordinary speech extending to external objects, to a certain degree, represents the object itself” (4.447).
[11]Ibid., 272.
[12]Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation NICNT (Grand Rapds: Eerdmans, 1977), 301; Jürgen Roloff, The
Revelation of John, A Continental
Commentary (London: SPCK, 1994),
191.
[13]Michael
Oberweis, “Erwägungen zur Apokalyptischen Ortsbezeichnung “Harmagedon,” Bib 76 (1995): 305-324.
[14]Chandler,
Semiotics, 1-8.
[15]“In a text, signs are organized into
meaningful systems according to conventions called codes, Codes are procedural
systems of related conventions, operating in certain areas and transcending
single texts. . . The meaning of a sign depends on the code within which it is
situated. Codes provide a framework within which signs make sense,” Chandler, Semiotics, 4.
[16]This distinction was first introduced by
Gottlob Frege, “Sinn und Bedeutung,” Zeitschrift
für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100 (1892): 56-78. Cited by
Arthur Gibson, Biblical Semantic Logic;
A Preliminary Analysis (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1981), 47ff. Subsequently referred to as Gibson, Logic.
[17]Cf. M. E. Locker und C. Sedmak, „The
Language-Game of Revelation, Interpreting the Book of Revelation through
Wittgenstein’s Philosophy of Language“ Philosophy
& Theology 13 (2/2002): 241-262.
[18]According to Wittgenstein (cf. PI 116),
already established language that can obtain a new meaning in a new
language-game (cf. Rev 1:3). Similarly, a sign that is found in a new
language-game can have a new meaning that is not to be found by studying any
previous use of this sign, but by describing its use in this new language-game
.
[19]A. N. Whitehead, “Use of Symbolism,” in
Rollo May, gen. ed., Symbolism in
Religion and Literature (New York: George Braziller), 245.
[20]“Hier
sind die beiden traditionellen Begriffe ‘Braut’ und ‘Weib’ zusammengefasst, um
darauf hinzuweisen, dass in dieser Ehe sich beide erfüllen, Symbol und
Weissagung.” Kraft, Offenbarung, 267.
[21]David Aune, Revelation 1-5, WBC, vol. 25. (Dallas: Word Books, 1997), 241f.
[22]Giesen, Offenbarung,
94.
[23]Wilfrid J. Harrington, Revelation, Sacra Pagina Series, vol. 16 (Collegeville: The
Liturgical Press, 1993), 208.
[24]“The seer was told, ”gégonan” (21:6),
a term translated variously as “It is done,” “All is over,” or “These words are
already fulfilled.” This term, however, also signifies transformation or
metamorphosis.” Leonard L. Thompson, The Book of Revelation. Apocalypse and Empire (New York: Oxford University Press), 85.
[25]Martin
Hasitschka, “Die Offenbarung des
Johannes,“ University of Innsbruck,
WS, 1998, 4.
[26]Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993),
131ff.
[27]Nelson J. Kraybill, Imperial Cult and Commerce in John’s Apocalypse. JSNTSupp 132 (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1996), 207ff.
[28]Beale, Revelation,
1044ff.
[29]For Schüssler Fiorenza the statements of Rev
21:2.10 are what ascertains that the New Jerusalem is an eschatological
reality. “Das neue Jerusalem ist die Stadt, die von Gott selbst herabkommt. Es
stammt aus dem Himmel. Der neue Ort der heiligen Stadt ist die neue Erde in
einer neuen Welt, in der durch das Herabsteigen der Stadt die Trennung von
Himmel und Erde für immer aufgehoben ist.” Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Priester für Gott; Studien zum Herrschafts-
und Priestermotiv in der Apocalypse), 348f. Subsequently referred to as Schüssler Fiorenza, Priester. This thesis however stresses the fact that not God comes
down from heaven, but the New Jerusalem. Even if “skēnōsei” in Rev 21:3 is an allusion to Jn 1:14, it does
not mean that God’s incarnation in the New Jerusalem signifies the Second
Coming of Christ taking away the separation of heaven and earth.
[30]“Was
bleibt einer Stadt wie Pergamum als Option noch übrig? Der Untergrund? Das
Ghetto? Die Landkommune?” Hans-Josef Klauck, „Das Sendschreiben nach Pergamon und der Kaiserkult in der
Johannesoffenbarung“ Biblica Roma 73 (1992), 181.
[31]“…there are reasons to believe John may have
though of the New Jerusalem as being in part a present, tangible reality.”
Kraybill, Cult and Commerce, 206.
[32]So Beale, Revelation, 1006.
[33]So Beale, Revelation, 1041.
[34]So Aune, Revelation
17-22, 1124f.
[35]“The marriage of heaven and earth…which the
Book of Revelation depicts as a descent of the Heavenly Jerusalem to the earth
from God (Rev 21-22), captures the sense of earth’s real possibilities and of
ours with it.” Walter Wink, Naming the
Powers; The Language of Power in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1984): 147. Subsequently referred to as Wink, Language of Power
[36]Once more, this shows John’s unique purpose
in writing Revelation. Unnoticed by many exegetes, the LXX in general uses the
passivum to describe the taking up of prophets into heaven (cf. “ánelēmphthē“
in 2 Kg 2:11, and „metetethē“ in Sir 44:16 [Giesen, Offenbarung, 257]).
[37]Beale, Revelation,
934.
[38]The term saints remains inconclusive for the
analysis of this verse because John uses it to describe Christians in heaven
(cf. Rev 5:8; 8:3. 4; 11:8) and on earth (Rev 13:7. 10; 14:12; 16.6; 17:6;
18:20. 21).
[39]Contrary to Aune, who speaks of the symbolic
significance of the linen. Aune, Revelation
17-22, 1030.
[40]“But a more specific allusion than that to
Ezekiel 43:7 is perceivable. The prophecies among which Ezek 37:27 and Lev
26:11-12 are foremost, predicted a final restoration in which God himself would
“tabernacle in the midst” of Israel, and Israel would “be to him a people,” and
he would “be their God”. Beale, Revelation,
1046.
[41]Schüssler
Fiorenza, Priester, 351.
[42]The. NRSV’ translation reads “mortals” instead of the RSV’s “men”
[43]Leo
Stock, Langenscheidts Kurzgrammatik
Altgriechisch (Berlin: Langenscheidt, 1988), 96.
[44]Bauer, WSNT,
1352
[45]“Rev 21:1 speaks of the coming of “a new
heaven and a new earth,” indicating a transformed reality, but Rev 5:10 makes
it clear that this new reality will be actualized on our earth.” Walter Wink, Engaging the Powers; Discernment in a World
of Domination (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 354. Subsequently
referred to as Wink, Powers.
[46]So
Schüssler Fiorenza, Priester, 375ff.
[47]“The motif of the disappearance of the sea
reflects the ancient Israelite tradition of the opposition of Yahweh and the
sea.” Aune, Revelation 17-22, 1119.
[48]Kraybill, Cult and Commerce, 211.
[49]Ibid., 211.
[50]Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy. Studies on the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993),
218.
[51]“In Judaism, the eschatological expectation
of a new Jerusalem implied a new temple.” Aune, Revelation 17-22, 1166.
[52]Wink, Language
of Power, 110.
[53]“Rev 21:22-23 is based not on opposition to
the temple but on the combination of two midrashic units, the second based on
Ps 132:14, in which the phrase “I have prepared for a lamb for my Messiah”
occurs, and the first on Isa 60:19, which refers to the Lord as the everlasting
light of Jerusalem.” David Flusser, “No Temple in the City,” Judaism and the Origins of Christianity
(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 454-465 cited in Aune, Revelation 17-22, 1167.
[54]Mit der
Tempellosigkeit (21,22)unterscheidet sich
das neue Jerusalem von den antike Städten, die einen das irdische
Jerusalem) bzw. Mehrere Tempel (babylonische und griechisch-römische Städte)
hatten. Unyong Sim, Das Himmlische
Jerusalem in Apk 21,1-22,5 im Kontext Biblisch-Jüdischer Tradition und Antiken
Städtebaus. BAC 25 (Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, 1995), 139. Subsequently referred to as Sim, Jerusalem.
[55]Hans-Joseph
Klauck, Die Religiöse Umwelt des
Christentums II; Herrscher- und Kaiserkult, Philosophie, Gnosis, in
Studienbücher Theologie, vol. 9,2 (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1996), 68f.
[56]Wink, Powers,
124.
[57]Heinrich
Kraft, Die Offenbarung des
Johannes. Handbuch zum Neuen
Testament, vol 16a (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1974), 273.
[58]Kraybill, Cult and Commerce, 222.
[59]Beale, Revelation,
1057.
[60]Sim, Jerusalem,
139.
[61]An interesting parallel is here found in the
dissertation of Hermann-Josef Meurer. The author concludes: “Denn indem der Mensch die
im göttlichen Wort Jesu und näherin
die in seinem Gleichniswort vermittelten Existenzentwürfe und
Handlungsparadigmen…in seinem Handeln realisiert, kann die Welt…heilvoll
verwandelt werden. So lassen sich die Gleichniserzählungen als
Handlungsentwürfe oder “Königswege”” der eschatologischen Gottesherrschaft
begreifen.” Hermann-Josef Meurer, Die
Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern; Paul Ricoeurs Hermeneutic der Gleichniserzählung
im Horizont des Symbols “Gottesherrschaft/Reich Gottes” Bonner Biblische
Beiträge, vol. 111 (Bodenheim: Philo, 1997), 731f.
[62]“Die
Nikolaiten sind Vertreter dieser ‘aufgeklärt-skeptischen’ Richtung, die sich
auf die Position der Starken in den Paulinischen Gemeinden zurückverfolgen
lässt. Umgekehrt dient offenbar die Abwehr der ‘Nikolaiten’ in den Gemeinden
der Apk dem Versuch das
Christentum
von einer Nivellierung an eine pagane
Allerweltsmeinung und –philosophie zu schützen.” Roman Heiligenthal, “Wer waren die ‘Nikolaiten’?
Ein Beitrag zur Theologiegeschichte des frühen Christentums.” ZNW 82 (1991), p. 137.
[63]“Was in
V. 4 ‘erste Liebe’ genannt wird, heißt in V. 5 ‘erste Werke.’ ‘Werke’ steht
stehen in den Sendschreiben für die christliche Lebensführung (vgl. 2,2.19;
3,1.2.8.15), die von der Liebe beseelt sein muß.” Giesen, Offenbarung,
99.
[64]“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and
to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29 that you
abstain from things sacrificed to idols and form blood and from things
strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things,
you will do well” (Acts 15:28-29).
[65]Giesen, Offenbarung,
99.
[66]Pablo Richard, Apocalypse. A People’s Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Maryknoll:
Orbis Books, 1995), 65.
[67]Ian Boxhall, “For ‘Paul’ of for ‘Cephas’?
The Book of Revelation and Early Asian Christianity,” in Understanding, Studying and Reading; New Testament Essays in Honor of
John Ashton, ed., Christopher Rowland and Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis,
JSNTSup 153 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 206.
[68]Beale, Revelation,
306.
[69]Ibid., 898.
[70]Bauckham, Theology of Revelation, 135.
[71]Wink, Powers,
99.
Dr. Markus Locker studied theology at the University of Vienna, Maryhill School of Theology and Loyola School of Theology, and is an Assistant Prof. for New Testament at Loyola School of Theology, Quezon City, Philippines.