# Jerusalem that now is



## py3ak (Apr 12, 2010)

Is John Brown's interpretation of Galatians 4:25 fairly standard among the Reformed? I'm interested in the contrast between Jerusalem above and Jerusalem that now is, and to a lesser extent in his take on Salem.



> This constitution, of which Sarah is the emblem, corresponds to, is embodied in, "the Jerusalem above." These words are often interpreted of the celestial church; but in this way of considering the phrase, it is difficult to see what is meant by its being the "mother of all believers." The word "above" is used in reference to time as well as place. The phrase before us may mean either the Jerusalem that is above in place—that is, the heavenly Jerusalem, or it may mean the Jerusalem above in time, or the ancient Jerusalem. That the last is its meaning here, seems probable from its being contrasted, not with Jerusalem below or Jerusalem on the earth, but with Jerusalem that now is. Jerusalem seems to have been a seat of religion before the Israelitish economy. Melchizedec, the priest of the most high God, was king of Salem, which we know was an ancient name for Jerusalem, and which was embodied in its later appellation.1 Zedec seems also to have been an ancient name of Jerusalem. This is asserted by the pseudo Josephus. Adonizedek is the king of Jerusalem as Adoni-bezek is the king of Bezek; Joshua x. 1; Judges i. 5; and there seems a reference to this in Isaiah i. 26 ; Jer. xxxi. 33. In this case, "Jerusalem above," or the ancient Jerusalem, is a very appropriate emblem of the religion of fallen man in its primitive form before " the law was added," which is substantially the religion of the New Testament, the latter being the complete development of the former. It is, I apprehend, in reference to the state of things in which Melchizedec was a priest, that our Lord is termed a priest, not after the order of Aaron, who was the priest of a peculiar people, but after the order of Melchizedec, who was the priest of mankind. The expression means more than this.
> 
> If, however, we should understand the word "above" as referring to place, the idea is this,—' All believers of every age have gone to heaven; and when a man becomes a believer, he joins the great society they belong to.' Thus the conversion of the Gentiles is described as their coming and sitting down " with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of their Father;" and the apostle, speaking of believers on the earth, says, That they are " come to the spirits of the just made perfect." In either view of it, Jerusalem is the true spiritual church consisting of genuine believers from the beginning down to the present time.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 16, 2010)

Any takers?


----------



## Gesetveemet (Apr 16, 2010)

I would just like to add something William Huntington wrote that I have always liked and believe. Sorry I can not answer the question. 



> The Dimension of Eternal Love by WILLIAM HUNTINGTON
> 
> " . . . Eternal love raised them up under the same tree where they fell; as it is written, "I raised thee up under the apple tree: there thy mother brought thee forth, there she brought thee forth, that bare thee." (Song 8:5) This mother (according to Paul, Gal 4:24) is the heavenly Jerusalem; and the heavenly Jerusalem; is the covenant of grace and God's elect in it; both typified by Sarah and her son Isaac. To Adam and Eve was the first promise of the covenant of grace revealed; and by the application of the promise were they brought forth from black despair to hope in God's mercy through Christ. . . . "





.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 17, 2010)

Hello Ruben,

Interesting question. I don’t have many commentaries on Galatians; Stott, Luther, Hendriksen, Calvin, Gill, and a few others. I like Calvin’s view the best:



> 24. _These are the two covenants_. I have thought it better to adopt this translation, in order not to lose sight of the beauty of the comparison; for Paul compares the two διαθὢκαι, to two mothers, and to employ _testamentum_, (a testament,) which is a neuter noun, for denoting a mother, would be harsh. The word _pactio_ (a covenant) appears to be, on that account, more appropriate; and indeed the desire of obtaining perspicuity, as well as elegance, has led me to make this choice.
> 
> The comparison is now formally introduced. As in the house of Abraham there were two mothers, so are there also in the Church of God. Doctrine is the mother of whom we are born, and is twofold, Legal and Evangelical. The legal mother, whom Hagar resembles, _gendereth to bondage_. Sarah again, represents the second, which gendereth to freedom; though Paul begins higher, and makes our first mother Sinai, and our second, Jerusalem. The two covenants, then, are the mothers, of whom children unlike one another are born; for the legal covenant makes slaves, and the evangelical covenant makes freemen.
> 
> ...



When I look over Gill and Hendriksen as well, they seem to agree in the main, though Gill is silent on the “church” in the OT being part of the “Jerusalem above”, but refers strictly to the “Gospel church”. None of them go back to Melchizedec and Salem as Brown does. I see there is great depth to be fathomed in this matter (which I have not liberty to plumb at the time), in the allegory Paul conceives.

From what I understand, and also have just read in these works, the “Jerusalem that now is” is made to signify that keeping of the law which is not mingled with faith, but leads to the bondage which works of the flesh inevitably lead to, and the “Jerusalem above” is – whether in the OT or the New – that approach to God by faith in the Redeemer He provides, regardless which administration of the covenant of grace one is in. I think Brown is right, and in accord with the others, taking it back to Melchizedec, though one could take it back further, to the very first believers, from the protoevangelion (or -gelium) on. That would make the “Jerusalem above” antedate the church (even the first believers), and refer to the Godhead. Like I said, there is great depth in this, and I am in it a bit over my head! If anyone can correct or shed light on what I’ve said, please do.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Apr 17, 2010)

I preached this not so long ago, and would simply agree with Brown's


> Jerusalem is the true spiritual church consisting of genuine believers from the beginning down to the present time.


 without making any further complication. Quite how anyone could think biblically that Paul only refers to the NT church and not to OT believers also is a puzzle to me!


----------



## py3ak (Apr 27, 2010)

Thank you. I was wondering more about Calvin and immediate successors. Does John Brown's interpretation differ (whether as advance or departure) from the typical exegesis in the Reformation and shortly thereafter?


----------

