The New Jerusalem in Matthew 5.14

K. M. Campbell

doi:10.1017/S0036930600042356

The New Jerusalem in Matthew 5.14

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009

K. M. Campbell

Show author details

K. M. Campbell: Affiliation:
71 Normanshire Drive, London E4 9HE

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

The picture of the hilltop city in Mt. 5.14b is an image within an image. It is one of those pictures employed by Jesus which is almost too familiar to us; its meaning appears on the surface to be perfectly simple and obvious, so that although frequently cited in support of various arguments, it is rarely subjected to scholarly scrutiny. It will be argued here that, far from being a casual illustration or simple cliché, it in fact constitutes a profoundly theological statement on the part of Jesus.

Type: Research Article
Information: Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , August 1978 , pp. 335 - 363

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930600042356 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 335 note 1} New Testament Apocrypha, ed. Hennecke, E., and Schneemelcher, W. (London, 1963), I, 109–110.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 2} The Gospel According to Thomas. Coptic Text Established and Translated by Guillaumont, A. et al. , (Leiden, 1959), 21.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 3} Montefiore thinks that the version of Thomas ‘seems preferable to that of the synoptic gospels’ (Montefiore, H. and Turner, H. E. W., Thomas and the Evangelists [London, 1962], 68)Google Scholar. Wrege thinks each independently stems from a ‘Ziontheology’ (Wrege, H. T., Die Vberlieferungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt [Tübingen, 1968], 31)Google Scholar. More likely is the view of Weinel, H. (Die Bergpredigt [Leipzig, 1920], 35)Google Scholar, and Schrage, W. (Das Verhältnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den koplischen Evangelieniibersetzungen [Berlin, 1964], 78f)Google Scholar, that the Thomas version is derivative of the Matthean. Schrage cogently points out that it is simply not true that a strongly fortified city cannot fall—ibid., 78; cf. also Bultmann, R., The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford, 1963), 91fGoogle Scholar. On the individualistic application of the image in Gnosticism, cf. Schrage, ibid., 79.

^{page 335 note 4} Jeremias, J., New Testament Theology, Part I (London, 1971), 24.Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 1} cf. e.g. the commentaries on Matthew by W. C. Allen, J. Calvin, F. V. Filson, F. W. Grosheide, D. Hill, W. Michaelis, H. N. Ridderbos, F. Rienecker, T. H. Robinson, A. Schlatter, O. Holtzmann, J. T. Nielsen, R. C. H. Lenski, A. H. McNeile, J. Schmid, R. V. G. Tasker, and T. Zahn. See also the commentaries of the Sermon on the Mount by E. Achelis, A. M. Brouwer, K. Bornhäuser, W. Luthi and R. Brunner, A. Tholuck, D. M. Lloyd-Jones.

^{page 336 note 2} Edersheim, A., Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ (Grand Rapids, 1967 [1876]), 34.Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 3} e.g. BischofF, E., Jesus und die Rabbinen (Leipzig, 1905), 22.Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 4} e.g. Oesterley, W. O. E., The Gospel Parables in the Light of their Jewish Background (London, 1936), 312Google Scholar; Cadoux, A. T., The Parables of Jesus (London, n.d.), 83Google Scholar; Lagrange, M. J., Evangile selon saint Matlhieu (Paris, 1948), 89.Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 5} op. cit., 52.

^{page 336 note 6} Dausch, P., Die drei älteren Evangelien (Bonn, 1932), 99.Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 7} Lohmeyer, E., Das Evangelium des Matthäus (Göttingen, 1956), 102.Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 8} Grundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Berlin, 1968), 139.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 1} von Rad, G., ‘The City on the Hill’ in The Problem of the HexaUuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh, 1966), 242 (E.T. of‘Die Stadt auf dem Berg’, En. Th., VIII [1948–49], 439ff)Google Scholar. It is noteworthy that this perception was made first in modern times by an Old Testament theologian.

^{page 337 note 2} Schnackenburg, R., ‘Ihr seid das Salz der Erde, das Licht der Welt’ in Schriften Zum Neuen Testament (Munich, 1971), 191.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 3} J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology, op. cit., 169, 230; also Jesus' Promise to the Nations (London, 1967), 66.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 4} Trilling, W., Das wahre Israel. Studien zur Theologie des Matthäus-Evangeliums (Munich, 1964), 142.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 5} Du Toit, A. B., ‘The Nature of Witness of the Church in the World according to Mt. 5:13–16’ in Biblical Essays. Proceedings of the Ninth Meeting of ‘Du Ou- Testamenliese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika’ (Stellenbosch, S.A., 1966), 209. He calls it ‘far-fetched’.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 6} On the evolution of the city generally, cf. e.g. Mumford, L., The City in History (London, 1966)Google Scholar; Hammond, M., The City in the Ancient World (Cambridge, Mass., 1972).CrossRef Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 7} Ehrenberg, V., The Greek State (London, 1969), 88.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 1} A Dictionary of Ancient Greek Civilisation (London, 1967), 107.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 2} Dickinson, G. L., The Creek View of Life (London, 1905), 69.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 3} EncBib, 833.

^{page 338 note 4} EncJud V, 583; cf. Smith, C. R., The Bible Doctrine of Society in its Historical Evolution (Edinburgh, 1920), 17fGoogle Scholar; Muntingh, L. M., ‘“The City which has Foundations”: Hebrews 11.8–10 in the Light of the Mari Texts’ in De Fructu Oris Sui. Essays in Honour of Adrianus van Selms (Leiden, 1971) 113ff.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 5} Albright, W. F., ‘The Canaanite God Ḥaurôon (Hôrôn)’, AJSLL, LIII (1936), 11.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 6} Albright, ibid., 11; cf. also Gaster, T. H., Thespis. Ritual, Myth and Drama in the Ancient Near East (New York, 1950), 185.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 7} cf. e.g. Dahood, M., ‘Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography I’, Bib., XLIV (1963), 297fGoogle Scholar; Bartina, S., ‘Un nuevo semitismo en Apocalipsis 14: tierra o ciudad’, EstBib., XXVII (1968), 347–349Google Scholar. For examples of such fluidity cf. e.g. Prov. 29.4; 31.23; Jer. 15.7; Eccl. 10.16; Sir. 51.9.

^{page 338 note 8} cf. van der Ploeg, J., ‘soziale Groepeeringen in Het Oude Israel’, Jaarbericht VIII, Ex Oriente Lux (1942), 642–650.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 9} Pedersen, J., Israel (London, 1926), I–II, 45–46.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 10} H. W. Robinson seems to have coined the phrase ‘corporate personality’, but on account of its possible animistic overtones the phrase is better avoided. The recent study of de Fraine, J. fails to apply the solidarity principle to the city— Adam and the Family of Man (Staten Island, New York, 1965).Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 1} cf. van Selms, A., ‘Die Stad in die Israelitiese Voorstellingslewe’, Hervomde Theologiese Studies, VIII (1952), 79–89.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 2} cf. van Selms, ibid., 80f.

^{page 339 note 3} A Dictionary of Ancient Greek Civilization, 108.

^{page 339 note 4} Klein, F. A., ‘Mitteilungen über Leben, Sitten und Gebräuche der Fellachen in Palästina’, ZDPV, III (1880), 102.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 5} cf. Comblin, J., ThÉologie de la mile (Paris, 1968), 108–142.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 6} cf. Pedersen, , Israel, I–II, 34f.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 7} Encjud, V, 584.

^{page 340 note 1} Wallis, G., ‘Die Stadt in den Überlieferungen der Genesis’, ZAW, LXXVIII (1966), 148.Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 2} With the possible exception of the Rechabites—cf. L. Bronner, ‘The Rechabites’ in De Fructu Oris Sui, op. cit., 6–16.

^{page 340 note 3} cf. Neufeld, E., ‘Royal-Urban Society in Ancient Israel’, HUCA, XXXI (1960), 31–53Google Scholar; C. R. Smith, Bible Doctrine of Society, op. cit., 18ff.

^{page 340 note 4} cf. Aharoni, Y., The Land of the Bible (London, 1967), 95fGoogle Scholar; Pedersen, Israel, op. cit., I-II, 6f.

^{page 340 note 5} Schmidt, K.-L., ‘Jerusalem als Urbild und Abbild’, Eranos, XVIII (1950), 207ff.Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 1} This has been fully discussed by Alt, A., ‘Jerusalems Aufstieg’, ZDMG, LXXIX (1925), 1–19Google Scholar; cf. also Noth, M., ‘Jerusalem und die israelitische Tradition’, OTS, VII (1950), 28ffGoogle Scholar; Poelman, R., ‘Jérusalem d'en haut’, VieSpir, CVIII (1963), 639ff.Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 2} ‘Jerusalems Aufstieg’, op. cit., I4f.

^{page 341 note 3} Woudstra, M. H., The Ark of the Covenant from Conquest to Kingship (Philadelphia, 1965), 55Google Scholar. The Ark narratives are discussed by Woudstra on pp. 14–38.

^{page 341 note 4} So e.g. de Vaux, R., ‘Jerusalem and the prophets’ in Interpreting the Prophetic Tradition, ed. Orlinsky, H. M. (Cincinnati, 1965), 275–300Google Scholar; Jeremias, Jörg, ‘Lade und Zion’ in Probleme biblischeir Theologie, ed. Wolff, H. W. (Munich, 1971), 183–198Google Scholar. For an evaluation of the arguments in favour of this view cf. Roberts, J. J. M., ‘The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition’, JBL XCII (1973), 329–344Google Scholar. Roberts proposes ‘a better hypothesis. I suggest that all the features of the Zion tradition can be explained most adequately by positing an original Sitz im Leben in the era of the Davidic-Solomonic empire’—ibid., 339.

^{page 342 note 1} Vriezen, T. C., Jahwe en zijn Stad (Amsterdam, 1962), 9.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 2} There were two sides to this coin: Yahweh could abandon Jerusalem to punishment; he could also make himself known far away from Jerusalem, as e.g. Daniel and Ezekiel discovered.

^{page 342 note 3} Other terms include ‘city of David’, ‘city of Judah’, ‘Temple Mount’, ‘Mount Moriah’, ‘Ariel’, ‘Jebus’, ‘;salem’.

^{page 343 note 1} Thus ‘Zion’ cannot always be restricted to the inhabitants of Jerusalem proper, but may encompass all Israel, whose representatives they are.

^{page 343 note 2} cf. Ps. 137.7—in retrospect, ‘the day of Jerusalem’. Zion was inviolable so long as she remained the holy city; God would defeat all her enemies. But when Zion became the city of sin, then God himself is said to have fought against her; cf. Lutz, H.-M., Jahwe, Jerusalem und die Völker (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1968), 33–204.Google Scholar

^{page 343 note 3} The argument that the religious import of Jerusalem was an entirely postexilic development is tenable only if all the relevant biblical texts are redated to after the exile; cf. Jörg Jeremias, op. cit., 188f; Roberts, op. cit., 329ff.

^{page 344 note 1} Schmidt, K.-L., Die Palis in Kirche und Welt (Basel, 1939), 30; cf. 25–27.Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 2} It has been maintained that Israel held this ‘mythological’ idea in common with its neighbours, but the terms are in fact used here metaphorically; cf. Fohrer, G., “σιών, κτλ.,’ TDNT, VII, 317Google Scholar. On the spiritual capital as the centre of the earth in the ancient world, cf. Müller, W., Die heilige Stadt (Stuttgart, 1961), passim.Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 3} cf. generally, Schmidt, H., Israel, Zion und die Volker (Marburg, 1966)Google Scholar; cf. also Rissi, M., The Future of the World (London, 1972), 46.Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 4} Rissi, op. cit., 42.

^{page 344 note 5} cf. Hasel, G., The Remnant (Berrien Springs, Mich., 1972), 253fGoogle Scholar; Herntrich, K., ‘λεμμα, κτλ.,’ TDNT, IV, 2O3fGoogle Scholar; Congar, Y. M.-J., The Mystery of the Temple, (London, 1962), 84Google Scholar; Asensio, F., El dios de la luz (Rome, 1958), 207.Google Scholar

^{page 345 note 1} cf. Tob. 14.5; Jub. I.28f; 4.26; 1 En. 90.28–29; 4 Ezra 10.25–27; 2 Bar. 59.4; T.Dan. 5.12f.

^{page 345 note 2} Tob. 13.9–11 (Charles trans.).

^{page 345 note 3} 2 Mace. 5.19.

^{page 345 note 4} cf. Volz, P., Die Eschalologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeiialler (Tübingen, 1934), 371–375Google Scholar. Strack-Bill., IV, 2L883f; Rissi, op. cit., 47f.

^{page 345 note 5} 4 Ezra 6.26. cf. also 8.52; 10.49; 13–36; 2 Bar 4.2–7.

^{page 345 note 6} Sib. 5. 250; 1 En. 26.1; Jub. 8.19.

^{page 346 note 1} sib. 5.249f.

^{page 346 note 2} cf. Jub. 1.28; 2 Bar. 32.4; 6.9; T. Dan. 5.13; Sir. 36.18; Tob. 13.10.

^{page 346 note 3} Sib. 3.787; 5–420f; 4 Ezra 10.18.

^{page 346 note 4} Sib. 5.420.

^{page 346 note 5} Sib. 3.787.

^{page 346 note 6} Tob. 13.11.

^{page 346 note 7} Recently an inscription has been found on the western wall of the Temple area in Jerusalem, dating about A.D. 4; it consists of Is. 66.14a—‘And you shall see it and your heart shall rejoice and your bones shall flourish like tender grass’. The ‘it’ is the ‘comfort of Jerusalem’ promised in the preceding verse. This suggests the continuing hope that prophecy was about to be fulfilled at this time of the reconstruction of the old city (cf. Talmon, S., ‘The Biblical Concept of Jerusalem’, JES, VIII [1971], 314f.)Google Scholar

^{page 346 note 8} Bietenhard, H., Die himmlische Weltim Urchristtntum und Spätjudentum (Tübingen, 1951), 195.Google Scholar

^{page 346 note 9} Ex. R. LII.5.

^{page 346 note 10} Gen. R. LIX.5.

^{page 346 note 11} Num. R. Ill.a; Kel. 1.6–9.

^{page 346 note 12} Num. R. XXI.21.

^{page 346 note 13} cf. B.K. 82b; Arak IX.6; Tos Maas I.12; Tos Sukk 2.3.

^{page 347 note 1} Ps. R. XVI.

^{page 347 note 2} Pirke Aboth 3.3.

^{page 347 note 3} es. Rab. 34.1.

^{page 347 note 4} cf. Volz, , Eschatologie, 371ffGoogle Scholar; Strack-Bill. IV, 2, 883ff.

^{page 347 note 5} Pes. Rab. 35.4.

^{page 347 note 6} Ex. R. XV.21.

^{page 347 note 7} Gen. R. LIX.5; cf. Ab. R. Nath 35.106; Pes. Rab. 41.1.

^{page 347 note 8} Ber. IV.3; 8a; Kidd 49a; Sukk 51b; Meg III.1; Ket 105a.

^{page 347 note 9} Gen. R. LIX.5; cf. LVI.10.

^{page 348 note 1} cf. Strack-Bill III., 7g6f; Bietenhard, , Himmlische Welt 196.Google Scholar

^{page 348 note 2} Pes. Rab. 41.173a.

^{page 348 note 3} Kidd 69a; Ex. R. XXIII. 10; Sanh. 37a.

^{page 348 note 4} Cant. R. VII.5, 3.

^{page 348 note 5} Pes. 26.7.

^{page 348 note 6} Yom 69a; Betz 14b; R. Sh. 19b; Tarn 27b.

^{page 348 note 7} 4 QpNah.

^{page 348 note 8} 4Q.pIs^{page b}; cf. also 4Q, pIs^d.

^{page 348 note 9} 4Q, Test.

^{page 349 note 1} IQM I.3; III.11; VII.4.

^{page 349 note 2} IQM XII.13; cf. XIX.5.

^{page 349 note 3} 4Q.pPs 37.21–22.

^{page 349 note 4} QFlor I.11f.

^{page 349 note 5} McKelvey, R. J., The New Temple (London 1969), 37Google Scholar. cf. Milik, J. T., ‘Description de la Jérusalem nouvelle (?)’, DJD, I, 134fGoogle Scholar; Baillet, M., ‘Fragments araméens de Qumrân 2: Description de la Jérusalem nouvelle’, R.B., LXII (1955), 222–245Google Scholar. On the basis of these texts, it may be conceded that the Temple rather than the city is the subject; but the other texts clearly do refer to the whole city.

^{page 349 note 6} 4QDibHam IV.1ff; cf. Baillet, M., ‘Un recueil liturgique de Qumran, Grotte 4: “Les paroles des luminaires” (Planches XXIV á XXVIII)’, RB, LXVIII (1961), 195–250.Google Scholar

^{page 349 note 7} 4QDibHam IV.3ff.

^{page 350 note 1} cf. DJD, IV, 87ff. Gärtner, claims that in this psalm ‘the reference (is) to the community as the true Israel’ (The Temple and Community in Qumran and in the New Testament [Cambridge, 1965], 1)CrossRef Google Scholar. But there seems no reason to refer this song to the Qumran community—rather it refers to the eternal city, personified.

^{page 350 note 2} Gärtner, The Temple, op. cit., 24.

^{page 350 note 3} cf. MacDonald, J., The Theologf of the Samaritans (London, 1964), 49ffGoogle Scholar; Bowman, J., Samaritanische Probleme (Stuttgart, 1967), 31.Google Scholar

^{page 351 note 1} cf. Bowman, J., ‘Pilgrimage to Mount Gerizim’, Eretz-Isracl, VII (1964), 21f.Google Scholar

^{page 351 note 2} cf. The Samaritan Liturgy, ed. by Cowley, A. E. (Oxford, 1909), 488.Google Scholar

^{page 351 note 3} For the thirteen titles of Gerizim cf. Macdonald, Theology, 328.

^{page 351 note 4} Bowman, ‘Pilgrimage’, 17f.

^{page 351 note 5} On the attitude of Jews and Samaritans at the time of Christ—mutual contempt and hatred—cf. Jeremias, J., Jerusalem in the time of Jesus (London, 1969), 352–358Google Scholar; Strack-Bill, I, 538f; Bowman, J., ‘samaritan Studies’, BJRL, XL (1958), 298ff.Google Scholar

^{page 351 note 6} On Samaritan eschatology generally, cf. MacDonald, , Theology, 357–415.Google Scholar

^{page 351 note 7} cf. Macdonald, , Theology, 330, 395.Google Scholar

^{page 352 note 1} cf. Macdonald, , Theology, 393ff, 406ff, 415, 122.Google Scholar

^{page 352 note 2} Ant., XI, 340, 303.

^{page 352 note 3} Ap., I, 273;B.J., V, 136–237.

^{page 352 note 4} B.J., III, 54.

^{page 352 note 5} B.J., VI, 437.

^{page 352 note 6} cf. K.-L. Schmidt, Die Polis op. cit., 84–94.

^{page 353 note 1} cf. Lohse, ‘σιών’, op. cit., 327.

^{page 353 note 2} Lk. 9.31, 51, 53; 13–22, 33, 34; 17–11; 19.11. cf. De Young, J. C., Jerusalem in the New Testament (Kampen, 1960), 64–74Google Scholar; Simson, P., ‘The Drama of the City of God’, Scripture, XV (1963), 66, 70f.Google Scholar

^{page 353 note 3} ‘The whole of the Jews’ religion, centred at the temple, was for Jesus the revealed religion according to the authority of the Law, the only valid, true religion. He had not come to destroy this God-ordained system of redemption, but to be its fulfilment’—de Young, Jerusalem, 60.

^{page 354 note 1} The old Jerusalem becomes the new Sodom in its destruction; on the analogy cf. Spaemann, H., ‘Die Stadt in der Heilsgeschichte’, Lebendiges Zeugnis, I, (1962), 63f.Google Scholar

^{page 354 note 2} Poelman, , ‘Jérusalem’, 645.Google Scholar

^{page 354 note 3} De Young, , Jerusalem, 64.Google Scholar

^{page 354 note 4} The Didache applies this phrase to Jesus: ‘offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great King, saith the Lord’ (Didache, XIV, 3).

^{page 354 note 5} Bultmann, R., The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans, by Beasley-Murray, G. R. et al. , (Oxford 1971), 139Google Scholar. So also Strathmann, H., Das Evangelium naeh Johannes (Göttingen, 1968), 86.Google Scholar

^{page 355 note 1} Brown, R. E., The Gospel of John (Garden City, New York, 1966), I, 176.Google Scholar

^{page 355 note 2} ‘Our ancestors’ may refer to Samaritan as opposed to Jewish fathers, but more likely (and with greater weight in this context) to those ancestors common to both groups, from whose custom—in the Samaritan view—the Jews had departed; cf. Lagrange, M.-J., Évangile selon saint Jean (Paris, 1927), 111.Google Scholar

^{page 355 note 3} So e.g. Spörri, G., Das Evangelium nach Johannes (Zürich, 1950), I, 78Google Scholar; Grosheide, F. W., Het Heilig Evangelie Volgens Johannes (Amsterdam, 1950), I, 293.Google Scholar

^{page 355 note 4} cf. here Haacker, K., Die Stiftung des Heils (Stuttgart, 1972), 42Google Scholar: ‘indeed the question discussed here, where should men pray, is but the other side of the question, where is God present’.

^{page 356 note 1} cf. Calvin's, comment, that this ‘teaches us that we ought not to attempt anything in religion rashly or at random; because, unless there be knowledge, it is not God that we worship, but a phantom or idol’—Commentary on the Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, 1949), I, 159.Google Scholar

^{page 356 note 2} The only such occurrence of μεςin Jesus' teaching.

^{page 356 note 3} The error committed by such as Bultmann is that they fail to distinguish between the opposition of Jesus (and John) to Judaism as such, and their opposition to the contemporary character of Jewish rule. It is only the latter which the Gospels (like e.g. Jeremiah before) oppose; here Jesus makes it plain that he considers Judaism orthodox when rightly interpreted and practised.

^{page 356 note 4} Both legitimate (Zion) and illegitimate (Gerizim) make way for the superior; cf. Hoskyns, E. G. and Davey, F. N., The Fourth Gospel (London, 1950), I, 243.Google Scholar

^{page 356 note 5} Contra Bultmann, our attention is drawn to the force of λλ in v. 23. The opposition implied is comprehensible only if vs. 22 and 23 originally formed a unit, cf. Lagrange: “The order is not that of the rules of written composition, but we are listening to a conversation’—Commentary, 112; cf. also Schnackenburg, R., Das Johannesevangelium (Freiburg, 1967), I, 471.Google Scholar

^{page 357 note 1} ‘Jesus fills the νν στίν with γώ ɛἰμι’ —P. Ricca, Die Esckatologie des Vierlen Euangeliums, 9, cited in Haacker, op. cit.

^{page 357 note 2} cf. Rawlinson, A. E. J., ‘In Spirit and in Truth: An Exposition of St. John IV.16–24’, ET, XLIV (1932), 14.Google Scholar

^{page 357 note 3} Haacker, , Stiflung, 47.Google Scholar

^{page 357 note 4} So Schnackcnburg, Commentary, I, 471.

^{page 357 note 5} Not a Spirit; cf. ὀ .

^{page 357 note 6} is probably an editorial addition by John.

^{page 358 note 1} cf. Weiss, B., Das Johannes-Evangelium (Göttingen, 1902), 147Google Scholar; Morris, L., The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids 1971), 273Google Scholar. On Taheb expectations in Samaria, cf. Macdonald, Theology, 362ff.

^{page 359 note 1} Comblin points out that in the OT there is no mention of a new Tyre or a heavenly Babylon; Jerusalem is unique because it is more than a topographical reference, it is also an ecclesiological term; thus John in the Revelation can equate the images of ‘bride’ and ‘city of God’ because both denote God's people (Rev. 21.2, etc.)—Thiologie, 158.

^{page 361 note 1} cf. L. M. Muntingh, ‘The city which has foundations’ op. cit., n6f; C. R. Smith, The Bible Doctrine of Society op. cit., 106.

^{page 361 note 2} cf. Fairbairn, P., The Interpretation of Prophecy (London, 1964), 50f.Google Scholar

^{page 362 note 1} J. Jeremias, Jesus' Promise, op. cit., 66.

^{page 363 note 1} Ag. Cat., IV, vi, 11.

^{page 363 note 2} One of the Arabic terms for city employed in Islam is Umma, which means ‘The nation, the people of Mohammed, for whom the prophet prays …’—Gardet, L., La Cité musulmanc (Paris 1954), 194Google Scholar. It ‘indicates that group of men to whom God sends a prophet, and in particular those who, having heard his preaching, believe in him, making covenant with God through his mediator’—L. Massignon, ‘L'Umma et ses synonymes: notion de “communautfi sociale” en Islam’, REI (1941–46), 151.

Article contents

The New Jerusalem in Matthew 5.14

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests