Other articles from this issue | Version in English | Version in French
Jerusalem in the New Testament
Pierre Federle
Introduction
The same major elements about Jerusalem, namely the ideal, the reality and the future, are found in the New Testament as in the Hebrew Bible. Even the citations of the name "Jerusalem" are proportionately equal (640 in the First Testament and 139 in the New Testament). Nevertheless in the latter, the earthly Jerusalem loses little by little its importance at the expense of the heavenly Jerusalem. Moreover, the approach to Jerusalem differs according to each of its authors.
The Importance of Jerusalem
The New Testament attaches in certain passages a special significance to the historical Jerusalem and it reflects an unmistakable religious interest of the Christian community in the name "Jerusalem". On three occasions it is called the "holy city" without any name (Mt.4:5; 27:53; Rev. 11:2). This echoes a received tradition. Matthew also remembers a saying (5:35) that one should not swear "by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king". The author of the Apocalypse even finds a completely new name: "the beloved city" (Rev. 20:9). It is a term for the historical Jerusalem, referring to its election by the Lord (II Chr.6:38) and to passages which speak of God's love and care for Jerusalem (Ps.78:68, 87:2). He also speaks of the Church as a new land of Israel with Jerusalem as its capital, the Jerusalem of the millenium, symbol of the universal Church and beloved by God because Christ reigns in it. All this points to the religious significance which Jerusalem still had for the oldest Christian community.
Among the Synoptics, Luke attaches the greatest importance to Jerusalem. The whole Gospel is a journey from Galilee to Jerusalem and the Acts of the Apostles start from Jerusalem bringing the good news to the ends of the world. In the life of Jesus, the movement in relation to Jerusalem is centripetal, but in the life of the Church it is centrifugal, pointing to a diminished importance. The only incident from Jesus' hidden years is his yearly habit of going to Jerusalem in pilgrimage (Lk.2:41-52). Jerusalem is the centre of the main event of salvation: death, resurrection, ascension, gift of the Spirit and the beginning of the Church. Luke even changes the order of the temptations so that his account may finish in Jerusalem (Lk.4:3-13). After the resurrection, Luke omits the apparitions in Galilee, so that the book can finish in Jerusalem in the Temple where it started (Lk.24:52-53). Throughout his Gospel, we find the verb "to go forth" (ekporeuomai) a technical term with a theological significance indicating the progressive movement of everything towards Jerusalem (Lk.4:30; 9:51; 19:28). It is recorded that Jesus wept twice: at the occasion of the death of his friend Lazarus (Jn.11:35) and over Jerusalem (Lk.19:41). This is Jesus' first glimpse of Jerusalem in Luke since the boyhood episode and he broke into tears, because he loved the city and realised that it was not ready to receive the royal "visitation". Yet, he was the one who could bring it salvation of "peace". There might be a cruel play on words in Aramaic between the "peace" offered and refused and the popular etymology of the city "vision of peace". A similar ironical hint could be recorded in the saying of Christ, again proper to Luke (13:33) that "it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem", namely, that Jerusalem has the monopoly of killing God's messengers.
For John, Jerusalem seems even more central than for Luke (not in citations of the name ! Luke has 31, John 12).. There is little about the Galilean ministry (4:43-54; 6:1 - 7:9, against Luke: 4:14-9:50). John starts the public life of Jesus with the cleansing of the Temple (2:35-51); the call of the disciples (1:35-51) and the wedding at Cana (2:1-11) serve only as preliminaries. The parallel accounts in the Synoptics put the same event in the last stage of his ministry (Mk.11:15-19; Mt.21:12-17; Lk.19:45-46). In this event he speaks in public for the first time and does so in Jerusalem, in the Temple, at the time of Passover . We could anticipate here what will be developed later by pointing out that this text contains a programmatic teaching of the mystery, namely the "new sanctuary" (2:21; 4:21) which will end the era of the earthly Jerusalem. Another element worth mentioning: the home country of Jesus is not Nazareth (Galilee) but Jerusalem (Judea), according to the prophecies of the Old Testament announcing the coming of the Messiah in Jerusalem (Sir.24:8-12; Wisdom established itself in Jerusalem). The saying "a prophet has no honour in his own country (.1n.4:44) cannot refer to Galilee, as the following verse mentions (4:45) that the Gall-leans received him well: it refers to Jerusalem! The parallel texts in the Synoptics (Mt.13:57; Mk.6:4; Lk.4:24) refer to Nazareth and Galilee as his own country. Mark points out during his visit to Nazareth "they would not accept him" (6:3). Finally Jesus performs his last miracle at the doorstep of Jerusalem, namely the resurrection of Lazarus at Bethany; Jesus had to withdraw as some wanted to put him to death. It is clear that the Gospel of John is centred on Jerusalem. As the term "the Jews!' in the fourth gospel symbolizes the "fleshly man", everyman, all those who are identified with the world opposed to the light, so Jerusalem is a dramatic theological symbol: it stands for the world in solidarity with man, centre of the universe which ought to be the best and yet has no room for God.
One could go on recall sympathetic attitude of Paul towards Jerusalem.The Church of Jerusalem had its prestige many years after Christ's death and Paul speaks of it with great respect (Rom.15:25-31). Although Paul wanted to head west, after his work in the Eastern Mediterranean area was finished, he still took the collection personally to the mother community of Jerusalem as a token of solidarity and respect of the Gentile churches (Ga1.2:10; I Cor.16:1-4; /I Cor.8:1-9,15). Moreover James, the head of the Church of Jerusalem, not one of the Twelve, is given precedence over two apostles, Peter and John the son of Zebedee (Gal.2:9).
The Judgment
The New Testament authors echo the complaints of the Prophets against Jerusalem. The threat of rejection and ruin is even more precise and hard.
Already in the infancy gospel of Matthew we find the essential elements of what will happen. The star led the Magi to Jerusalem (Mt.2:1) and anyone familiar with the Bible will think immediately of the star that rises from Jacob (Num.24:17), a messianic reference to David and his conquests. They were looking for a king. Herod and all Jerusalem were "perturbed" (Mt.2:3). The verb is only used again when the disciples saw Jesus walking on the water (Mt.14:26) and thought he was a ghost! In both cases, this terror is fear which comes from unbeliefl Anyway, the religious experts of Judaism tell the Magi that they should not look in Jerusalem but in Bethlehem. It is a clear hint that the capital has lost some of its prestige. Matthew looked for a far fetched assonance in a prophecy "he will be called a Nazarene" (Mt.2:23) to show that Jesus, son of David, the Galilean, will not carry the name of Jerusalem (the prophecy in mind is probably Is.1 I : I "...and a branch [netzer] shall sprout").
Another episode, the Transfiguration (Mt.17:1 ff; Mk.9:2 fit, Lk.9:28 ft) contains an implicit rejection of Jerusalem: the privileged mountain where the theophany takes place has no name in the three texts. Yet the heavenly voice recalls a number of biblical references, especially Ps.2:7 (with Is.42:1) and the preceding verse says "I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill" (Ps.2:6). Mount Zion had received in prophetical and rabbinical tradition this eschatological value (cf Is.2:2-3, Dan.9:16) and this silence from the Synoptic writers accepts implicitly the Galilee of the nations at the expense of Jerusalem.
John, so much centred on Jerusalem, gives the same message as Matthew by ending his gospel (Jn.21) in Galilee. For him, after the resurrection, the era of Jerusalem is closed and the mission is performed in the Galilee of the nations.
The Fall
Jerusalem is the symbol of the place of refusal, the symbol of a hostile and blind humanity that kills the prophets and rejects her king. The destruction of this city is certain and the gospels, written after its ruin, mention already the fulfilment. There are traces of the event in Luke when he describes with some precision the siege of the city (Lk.19:41-44; 21:20-33). In Matthew (24) and Mark (13) the fall of Jerusalem and the parousia are combined. Luke, having already presented the parousia (Lk.17:20-37) de- eschatologized his discourse, so that the fall is not apocalyptic or eschatological, but a pure and sad reality, consisting in a siege, the destruction of the city and even the profanation of the Temple.
Matthew integrated already the theology of the judgment of Jerusalem in his account. The parable of the invitations to the wedding (Mt.22:1-10) contains obvious allusions to the fall of the city. He made significant changes in comparision with Luke (Lk.14:15-24). The dinner becomes a royal wedding feast, the interest goes from the host to the king and finally a Matthean addition, namely the killing of the messengers (Mt.22:6) followed by a war (Mt,22:7). All that happened is already interpreted as a punishment for the trouble caused to the Christians, the servants of the king.
Restoration and the New Jerusalem
"Can a woman forget her suckling child?" (Is.48:15). People remembered a promise of some restoration (Mk.15:29) and Mark records how Jesus' own words were taken literally as regards the destruction of the Temple (how? not with his own hands?) and the rebuilding of it in three days! The new Temple, of course, was to be Christ and the Church. Several texts from the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament were found to hint at this change. The prophets spoke of a new creation (Is.65:17), of a new covenant (Ez.37126), of a new exodus (1s.43:14-21). More clearly, John says that the true worship of God can never again be localized, "neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem" (fn.4:21), or any place on earth. The Temple and Jerusalem had become superfluous for the new history of salvation. Jesus himself will take the place of Jerusalem and give living water (Jn.7:37) of which Jerusalem should have been the source according to eschatological biblical literature (Zech.14:8; Ez.47:1-12). Paul too, against the prophecies (Is.2:1-5; Mic.4:I-3) does not tie the gentile Churches to the historical Jerusalem (Gal.2:9; 4:25- 26) but to the "Jerusalem above". Their mother is to be the heavenly Jerusalem, not on earth and not yet present (Heb.12:18-24; Rev.21:2). Paul seems to record a strange accusation to the contemporary Jews: "Do you abominate idols, yet rob their temples" (Rom.2:22; cf. Acts 19:37). It is strange than an author contemporary with Paul, Josephus Flavius, had to refute that the name Jerusalem (hierosolyma) derived from a verb meaning "to rob a temple" (hieroslyetn) (Ag.Ap.1:34-35).
The old Jerusalem is replaced by a new Jerusalem which has its roots in heaven. "For here, we have no permanent home, but we are seekers after the city which is to come." (Heb 13:14).
These ideas are put into practice by the primitive Church. The story of Jesus ends in Jerusalem and it became the starting point of the spreading of the Good News: Samaria, (Acts 8:2-40), Caesarea (Acts 10), Antioch (Acts 11:19-26). Paul leaves Jerusalem as a missionary (Acts 9:30; 11:11 -25 ft) and he is followed by Peter after his release from prison (Acts 12:17). Jerusalem ceases to be the religious centre of the spreading of the Gospel.
What matters now is "the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem" (Heb.12:22). We find a psychodelic or apocalytic description of this new Jerusalem in the book of Revelation (Rev.21:9-22:6). It resumes and reinterprets biblical texts (especially Ez40-48). Actually, the earthly city cannot be recognised any more and the new Jerusalem is now synonymous with the kingdom of God. This new Jerusalem comes down from heaven and becomes the point of meeting of heaven and earth. It expresses symbolically the "now" and the "not yet"; it is paradise yes...but!. There is no Temple in this new Jerusalem (Rev.21:22); God's presence transcends earthly buildings. Jerusalem is now simply used as an inherited traditional name, but the reference is beyond concrete time and space...
Pierre Fa:clerk is a Missionary of Africa (White Father), a biblical scholar, presently resident in France.
