Book Reviews

This is a sort of ‘addendum’ to the Revelation Fulfilled? article 

 

Yes you read the title correct: WHO (not what) is the New Jerusalem?

Advertisement

 

To answer this, you must ask yourself: who is the Bride of Christ?

 

If you answered “the Church” (as in, the body of believers, not buildings) then you’d be correct as they are both one and the same!

Advertisement

 

new_jerusalem_map_earth
Roughly 1500 miles square.

 

Maybe you’ve always wondered why the Church is called the “bride”? Well, let’s examine some Scriptures and see!

2 Corinthians 11:2
I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I promised you in marriage to one husband, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Advertisement

 

Here is Paul pleading with the Corinthian church to stay pure and true to the Gospel message they received, like a virgin on her wedding day; and also true to Jesus, as he is the husband of the believers.

Again, we see Paul use this imagery of marriage in terms of Christ and his Church in the letter to the Ephesians. Paul is teaching them (and us) on how to conduct ourselves within the bonds of marriage with the instruction for husbands and wives to lay down their lives for one another in love; this is also the analogy of how Jesus relates to his Church:

Ephesians 5:24-25, 32
Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.  Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her … This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church.

What has this got to do with the New Jerusalem?

Advertisement

Now when it comes to verses on the New Jerusalem, most people read the first two verses of Rev 21 and stop there, assuming that because it is called “the new Jerusalem” and “the holy city” that it must be an actual, brick-and-mortar city.

 

But the description doesn’t stop there.

 

Advertisement

Keep reading past Rev 21:1 and see how the Bride is described:

Revelation 21:1-2
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Revelation 21:9-10
Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” And in the spirit he carried me away to a great, high mountain and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God.

 

Advertisement

Here we see the new heaven and earth, with the “holy city” – the new Jerusalem – coming down out of heaven.

 

Next we see that the new Jerusalem IS the bride of Christ.

 

Advertisement

So, if the Church/body of believers is the bride, and the new Jerusalem is also the bride – then they must be one and the same, and therefore symbolic of the physical reality of what the Church is! Unless of course you believe Jesus will be getting married to a literal city...

 

This vision of the new Heaven and Earth isn’t talking about a doing away with the current, physical realm, no; it’s a beautiful, poetic image of the marriage between God and his people – of the new way of the world now that Christ has accomplished his goal: defeating death and ushering in the New Covenant!

 

Advertisement

This is God showing that things work differently now. No longer is he only found in a temple, or a specific holy place (a lá John 4:21) – now he lives with us and in us!

 

This is why everything is new! Heaven will never be the same again, and neither will the Earth! God has set up a new temple where he dwells permanently now: in us, the Church!

 

Everything is New!

Advertisement

If we go back to Paul’s letters for a moment and read 2 Corinthians, we can see that this is what Paul was getting at too. He had grasped this and was desperately trying to get it across to the Corinthian church. Oh, how slow are we on the uptake too?

2 Corinthians 5:17-19

So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us.

 

Advertisement

If we are “in Christ” then WE are that new creation! Hence why, in the preceding verse, Paul writes that we should “regard no one from a human point of view” if they are believers.

 

Through Christ, God was reconciling the world back to himself. Paul again picks up on this theme in Colossian 1:19-20, where he says that “God was pleased” to reconcile all things to himself, whether “on Earth or in Heaven” – in other words, all of Creation.

 

Advertisement

Going back to Rev 21 in verse five, this theme continues where “the one on the throne” declares: “See, I am making all things new.”

 

But what does “reconcile” really mean? The dictionary definition would be “the restoration of friendly relations”.

 

Advertisement

If God was now on friendly terms with “all things” in heaven or Earth, and has given us the “ministry of reconciliation” as “co-workers with Christ” (1 Cor 3:9), then why would God just destroy it all in fire and start afresh? Seems to counteract those “friendly relations” doesn’t it?

 

As we can see from the following quote, this view isn’t new and was around in the second century as something which was taught by one of the more prominent early Christian theologians:

"For if the heavens are to be changed, assuredly that which is changed does not perish, and if the fashion of the world passes away, it is by no means an annihilation or destruction of their material substance that is shown to take place, but a kind of change of quality and transformation of appearance. Isaiah also, in declaring prophetically that there will be a new heaven and a new earth, undoubtedly suggests a similar view."

– Origen (2nd Century), Principles, 2:6:4

 

The Holy City

With that in mind, let’s examine the rest of the description of the New Jerusalem. Verse three continues to build on the conjoining of the Heaven and Earth imagery:

Rev 21:3

See, the home of God is among mortals, He will dwell with them;

they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them

 

God coming down to live in and with his people isn’t some new concept just found in Revelation either; we see this mentioned quite frequently in the New Testament:

John 14:23
Jesus answered, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word. My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

 

Ephesians 2:22
You also are being built together for God’s dwelling in the Spirit.

 

2 Timothy 1:14
Guard, through the Holy Spirit who lives in us, that good thing entrusted to you.

 

Hebrews 3:6
But Christ was faithful as a Son over His household. And we are that household if we hold on to the courage and the confidence of our hope.

 

1 Corinthians 3:16
Don’t you yourselves know that you are God’s sanctuary and that the Spirit of God lives in you?

 

All of these verses about those in Christ being the dwelling places or the temple of God is reason why there is no need for a sanctuary in the New Jerusalem – because God now dwells within us! We are the temple!

Revelation 21:22
I did not see a sanctuary in it, because the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its sanctuary.

Advertisement

 

The whole city is now a sanctuary unto the Lord, his glory fills it up. We can even see this prophesied way, way back in the Old Testament as far as Leviticus and Ezekiel:

Leviticus 26:11
I will place My residence among you, and I will not reject you.

 

Ezekiel 37:27

My dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be My people.

 

But both of these verses come with similar stipulations to what Jesus said about he and the Father making their home in those who believe in Jn 14:21 – if God’s commandments are kept, then he will come and dwell in and with us, if not, he won’t.

Advertisement

 

I’ve quoted this before in one of my previous articles on the Olivet Discourse, but I’ll show it again as the letter of Barnabas is one of the earliest texts we have outside of the New Testament, and so reflects a very early view from the Early Church period and the theology surrounding a new temple.

Barnabas 16:5-6

"Again, it was revealed how the city and the temple and the people of Israel should be betrayed … For it is written, ‘And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built...in the name of the Lord.’ I find...that a temple does exist. Having received the forgiveness of sins…in our habitation God dwells in us….This is the spiritual temple built for the Lord.

Advertisement

 

Examining the rest of the description of the New Jerusalem, the link between the symbolism of the body of believers as a temple and holy structure from the Epistles becomes clearer, as we can see from Ephesians.

Eph 2:19-22
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God.

 

Advertisement

Contrast this with Rev 21 again:

Revelation 21:14
And the wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

 

And again, just before this verse, the description of the surrounding walls are named after the tribes of Israel:

Revelation 21:12
It has a great, high wall with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates are inscribed the names of the twelve tribes of the Israelites

 

Could these walls represent the righteous Israelites who came before? Those in whom God found favour, or those who kept his commandments and upheld the Law now uphold and guard this “city”?

Those faithful of old who the writer of Hebrews, in chapter 12, calls a “great a cloud of witnesses” which surround us – much like these walls surround the holy city.

Advertisement

 

What type of Kingdom?

Many people today believe and expect Jesus to physically come back to Earth and set up a kingdom and throne in the actual city of Jerusalem, and reign from there for exactly 1000 years.

 

That is despite his kingdom having “no end”, as the angel Gabriel said to Mary in Luke 1:33 (cf. Dan 7:27). Why reign physically and temporarily, if only to end it and carry on reigning spiritually in heaven?

Advertisement

 

But if the Kingdom is within us (Lk 17:20-21) and has come upon us by the power of the Gospel (Lk 11:20), and if the body of believers are the New Jerusalem and also reign with Christ (2 Tim 2:12; Eph 2:6), does that leave room for any of this being a literal new planet Earth, or a literal and gigantic city floating out of the sky?

 

We can also see from records about Domitian's persecution (~96 AD) that he feared the coming kingdom like Herod did. But when quizzed, the Christians said it was not an earthly one they were waiting for, but a heavenly one (though admittedly, they were still waiting for it to come at the end of time itself).

And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.

– Eusebius, Church History, Book 3, ch. 20.6

 

This seems to be in keeping with what Paul wrote, when he said “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" in 1 Cor 15:50.

Advertisement

 

John 18:36 - My Kingdom is not of this world
The words of Jesus worth bearing in mind.

 

The similarities between the epistles, when they write about the Kingdom, and the New Jerusalem continue even when speaking of those who won’t enter it! The continuity across the Scriptures is a testimony unto itself at times, it really is quite amazing if one takes the time to look.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

 

Revelation 21:7-8
Those who conquer will inherit these things, and I will be their God and they will be my children. But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.

 

Gal 5:19-21
Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.


Revelation 21:27
But nothing unclean will enter it, nor anyone who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

 

Ephesians 5:5
Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure person, or one who is greedy (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

 

Revelation 22:14-15
Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they will have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

 

It’s worth pointing out here that if the New Jerusalem really is a literal city on a brand new planet Earth, after the judgement etc. – then who are the people outside of it?

 

Advertisement

There is one passage in Revelation which talks about reigning on Earth, though. But it isn’t Jesus doing it, not physically at least.

Revelation 5:10

You made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they will reign on the earth.

 

Advertisement

Who are the “they” mentioned in this verse? All those who were “redeemed for God by [Jesus’] blood” (Rev 5:9, cf. Rev 1:6)! This is also a fulfillment of what Daniel foresaw in his visions:

Daniel 7:18

But the holy ones of the Most High will receive the kingdom and possess it forever, yes, forever and ever.

 

Advertisement

But it doesn’t stop there: again in Rev 22 when the holy city is being described in some more detail, John writes that there is a river of “living water” flowing from the throne of God, lined with the Tree of Life on either side, where God’s people “will reign forever and ever” (Rev 22:5). These references to being a “kingdom” and “priests” harkens back to what Peter also wrote about in 1 Peter 2:9.

 

Leaves for Healing

There’s an important “clue” here about the nature of this city in the way the Tree of Life is described and its purpose – similar to what I pointed out a few paragraphs ago:

Revelation 22:2-3

The leaves of the tree are for healing the nations, and there will no longer be any curse.

 

Firstly, if this New Jerusalem appearing as a literal city is the culmination of world history after the judgement, second death, sheep and goats etc (in other words – there’s no one left except for God’s own people), why then do the nations still need healing?

 

Advertisement

Secondly, and maybe the most striking detail, is the mention that there will no longer be any curse. All throughout Scripture, there is one main thing which is always referred to as a “curse” – death (sometimes also synonymous with sin). And that is precisely what Jesus liberated us from by his own death on a cross!

Galatians 3:13

Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us

 

Advertisement

While I recognise that the general (and possibly majority) view in the early church was of a literal, earthly millennial reign (at least until the fourth century when it began to be condemned and viewed metaphorically), I can't help but see the imagery of the New Jerusalem as a spiritual and figurative description of our present, physical reality as a body of believers in Christ.

 

But maybe it is both. Spiritually true now of the Church, and a more complete and realised state in the future? Or maybe the later Christians were right and the strictly literal interpretation was just spread by uninformed people which took hold in the teachings of the church (as some of the later writers assert).

 

Advertisement

I'm not exactly sure where I stand on the millennial reign, but I've done my best to present a thorough study of the New Jerusalem which falls under that general area of theology.

 

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.




Advertisement

 

Further Reading:

 

Subscribe to Updates
Subscribe to:

Have something to say? Leave a comment below.

Leave a comment   Like   Back to Top   Seen 429 times   Liked 0 times

Subscribe to Updates

If you enjoyed this, why not subscribe to free email updates ?

Order my new book today from Amazon or fortydays.co.uk

Subscribe to Blog updates

Enter your email address to be notified of new posts:

Subscribe to:

Alternatively, you can subscribe via RSS

‹ Return to Blog

We never share or sell your email address to anyone.

I've already subscribed / don't show me this again

Recent Posts

The Problem of Suffering and How We Approach it

| 06th January 2018 | Christianity

The topic of human suffering is a subject many Christians struggle with, and is an issue many theologians have written about over the centuries — so it's definitely not something I can fully address in a single blog post! But there are some general principles we can find in Scripture that many Christians can/do accept, which should act as a starting point to addressing this subject, such as: We live in a fallen world due to sin (Gen 3), and so things aren’t perfect and neither are people, therefore suffering can happen from illness, nature, and human action (or inaction). Not all suffering is necessarily “bad”, from a Christian perspective. For example, if we are made to suffer due to our faith, we should rejoice to be counted as partakers in Christ’s suffering — 1 Peter 4:12-16 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that is taking place among you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you are sharing Christ’s sufferings, so that you may also be glad and shout for joy when his glory is revealed. If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the spirit of glory, which is the Spirit of God, is resting on you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, a criminal, or even as a mischief maker. Yet if any of you suffers as a Christian, do not consider it a disgrace, but glorify God because you bear this name. And, Matthew 5:10-12 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. “Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. Sometimes suffering can be used to test our faith to make us stronger, which we see an example of with Peter in the Gospels: Luke 22:31-32 “Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” And also in James’ epistle: James 1:2-4 My brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of any kind, consider it nothing but joy, because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance; and let endurance have its full effect, so that you may be mature and complete, lacking in nothing. Lastly, sometimes bad things just happen for no good reason. This kind of relates to point one, but with a bit of a different explanation to point out that just because someone suffers, it doesn’t necessarily mean they were under any judgement or that they were any worse than another person — though there are certain times where God's judgement was on someone, but these things are explained in Scripture so we can expect them (see: Acts 12:22-23 and 1 Cor 11:28-32). We can infer consequential suffering from Jesus’ teaching when he speaks about a local tragedy of a tower collapsing and killing some people: Luke 13: 4-5 Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower of Siloam fell on them—do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others living in Jerusalem? No […] Can we do anything about it? Christianity isn't about trying to philosophise about why we suffer, but rather it's to do with how we respond to suffering. We accept that it's a reality of our lives and world, and then go about trying to make it better. James makes the point in his epistle when explaining that “pure religion” is “to care for orphans and widows in their distress” (James 1:27). This is similar to what Isaiah declared about the type of worship that God is truly interested in: Isaiah 58:6-7Is not this the fast that I choose:to loose the bonds of injustice,to undo the thongs of the yoke,to let the oppressed go free,and to break every yoke?Is it not to share your br...

Jesus was a pagan copy, and other Christmas myths

| 24th December 2017 | Christmas

It's that time of year again when certain groups of people like to share memes and videos that apparently "prove" Jesus to be a carbon-copy of ancient Egyptian gods. This has been debunked so many times, yet it's still so pervasive on social media, mindlessly shared over and over again. This myth about Jesus being a copy of other pagan "dying-and-rising gods" doesn't have its roots in Egyptian legend, but rather in the claims of a film called Zeitgeist. A quick search online will bring up many websites which have gone through the claims of this film with a fine tooth comb, and debunked each one. Here's one such example, which lists out the major claims and gives a detailed response to each: Analysis and Response to Zeitgeist Video. To quote a pertinent part of the above website, Dr. Norman Geisler, a Christian systematic theologian and philosopher, gives a good response to the major claims against the resurrection: Dr. Norman Geisler, author or coauthor of more than 80 books, writes, “The first real parallel of a dying and rising god does not appear until A.D. 150, more than a hundred years after the origin of Christianity. So if there was any influence of one on the other, it was the influence of the historical event of the New Testament [resurrection] on mythology, not the reverse.  If you don't want to read a long essay of the subject though, this video by Inspiring Philosophy breaks it down nicely in just under 5 minutes: Other myths debunked If not Osiris, Jesus is often claimed to be copied from the Egyptian god Horus... or the Roman god Mithras. Apparently everyone just copied whoever came before them, and hoped no one would notice! All of these claims are equally as nonsensical as the others, and have "facts" which are completely fabricated to push an agenda of causing Christianity disrepute. But if you look into the actual myths of these ancient gods, you will see that none of them have any resemblance to Jesus or the New Testament. Here is another video which summarises these claims and counters them in a humorous way, this time by Lutheran Satire:    So let us go forward in the knowledge that Jesus was truly born, truly lived and truly rose again; and that he was unique and not a copy of other so-called gods. In the words of Leo the Great, let us celebrate "the birthday of Life, which destroys the fear of mortality and brings to us the joy of promised eternity"! Merry Christmas everyone....

Why Read The Early Church Fathers?

| 08th December 2017 | Early Church

Why read the Early Church Fathers? Maybe for some of you reading this, the question might better be phrased as: who are the Church Fathers? No doubt you will be familiar with some of their names: Augustine, Jerome, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr et al. You may have even read portions or quotes by some of these men. But that still doesn't really explain to you who they are and why you should care, much less actually read any of their works. My new book deals with a selection of some of the most influential Early Church Fathers, sometimes also referred to as the Apostolic Fathers (if they lived between AD 70-150), or collectively as the Ante Nicene Fathers for all of those in the period of time preceding the Council of Nicea (AD 325). It is these men who wrote doctrine and defences against heresy and helped to continue and shape the Church in its most formative years. Some of the earlier Christian leaders of the 2nd Century were discipled and taught by the Apostles themselves. Those include Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna. Still others in mid-2nd century were then taught by those who knew the men who were taught by some of the Apostles. One of the more well-known Bishops who was second generation to the Apostles was Irenaeus (best known for his extensive apologetic works, Against Heresies). From chapter 21 onward in my book, I look at a few writers from beyond this period (around 356) up until AD 449 where we can observe some distinctive changes in thought and practice. These people who came before us, those great men of faith, many of whom suffered persecution and martyrdom to preserve the Church and Christ's mission, bridge the gap between the Bible and the present day. They fill the void we sometimes wonder about when we get to the end of reading Acts or the Epistles and think, “what happened next?” or “what happened to the Ephesian church after Paul left?”. So Why Read What They Wrote? The Bible didn't just drop out of the sky, all leather bound and ready to read for us to pick up today. There was a lengthy process of selecting and preserving the apostles teachings which spanned nearly four centuries, and it was due to the Fathers and their faithfulness to the Scriptures that this was possible. Not only that, but due to their close links to the Apostles — some who were even taught directly by an apostle — we now have valuable resources and insights into aspects, teaching and issues within the very early Church which we can learn from and measure our doctrine and interpretation against. This isn't to say that everything the Church Fathers said, did or wrote is perfect; or that we should elevate their texts to the level of Scripture, but we can glean much from those who knew and were discipled by the Apostles (or those who knew them second hand). We can read what certain portions of Scripture meant to them, or see how they interpreted things in the years following the Apostles, and can compare that to how we might read those same Scriptures today. This is a highly valuable resource for us to still have available; to be able to check our beliefs and doctrines against accepted, historical orthodoxy, which was quite literally shaped through blood, sweat and tears. It's a wonderful thing to be able to look back millennia and know that what we believe and follow as Christians has been faithfully passed on and preserved for all this time. Many doctrines we now take for granted were actually developed and defended during this time; carefully worded and formed to ensure that the truth of God doesn't get lost, diluted or warped for selfish gain. We owe much to these men of God and can still learn a great deal from them, as they still speak to us today as part of that great cloud of witnesses who have gone before us (Heb 12:1). This is an excerpt from the introduction to my new book. You can read more from the Early Church Fathers in my new book, 40 Days with the Fathe...

Evidence of the Trinity in the Hebrew Scriptures

| 08th November 2017 | Trinity

Table of Contents Jewishness and the Trinity 1. God Is A Plurality The Name Elohim Plural Verbs used with Elohim The Name Eloah Plural Pronouns Plural Descriptions of God The Shema II. God Is At Least Two Elohim and YHVH Applied to Two Personalities III. God Is Three How Many Persons Are There? The Three Personalities in the Same Passage Conclusion New Testament Light I was recently in some discussions/debates online about the nature of God and whether the "Trinity" exists, or if God is purely singular and exists in different forms rather than different persons.   This idea that God has different "forms" or "modes" is what is known as Modalism (also sometimes called Sabellianism). This doctrine was condemned as heresy by Tertullian around 213 AD, and later by the bishop of Rome around 262 AD. A more modern sect of Christians, often called "Oneness Pentecostals", still hold to this heretical doctrine today. Now, to be clear: I do believe in the Trinity and accept that it is the orthodox position to hold. But that doesn't mean I've always fully grasped the concept. This is something Christians have struggled to define for centuries, hence the sometimes confusing and lengthy language of the creeds (see here, here, here and here for example). So after reading this debate online with some Oneness believers, I decided to look more into the Trinity to try and get my head around it as much as possible. On my searching and reading, I came across an article by Arnold Fruchtenbaum on the Jews for Jesus website. He had taken the time to really look into the Tri-unity of God from a Jewish/Hebrew perspective to bring some clarity to the issue. I found the article to be very helpful for my own understanding, and very illuminating to see the plurality of God in oneness hidden within the Hebrew language, something that is often lost in translation to our English bibles. I'm no Hebrew scholar, so rather than try (and probably fail) to explain the language nuances to you, I sought permission to post a copy of the original article here. I hope that the information provided is as helpful to you as it was for me. The original article begins below. Let me know your thoughts in the comments! Jewishness and the Trinity In a recent question-and-answer article, Rabbi Stanley Greenberg of Temple Sinai in Philadelphia wrote: Christians are, of course, entitled to believe in a trinitarian conception of God, but their effort to base this conception on the Hebrew Bible must fly in the face of the overwhelming story of that Bible. Hebrew Scriptures are clear and unequivocal on the oneness of God . . . The Hebrew Bible affirms the one God with unmistakable clarity. Monotheism, an uncompromising belief in one God, is the hallmark of the Hebrew Bible, the unwavering affirmation of Judaism and the unshakable faith of the Jew.” Whether Christians are accused of being polytheists or tritheists or whether it is admitted that the Christian concept of the Tri-unity is a form of monotheism, one element always appears: one cannot believe in the Trinity and be Jewish. Even if what Christians believe is monotheistic, it still does not seem to be monotheistic enough to qualify as true Jewishness. Rabbi Greenberg’s article tends to reflect that thinking. He went on to say, “…under no circumstances can a concept of a plurality of the Godhead or a trinity of the Godhead ever be based upon the Hebrew Bible.” It is perhaps best then to begin with the very source of Jewish theology and the only means of testing it: the Hebrew Scriptures. Since so much relies on Hebrew language usage, then to the Hebrew we should turn. 1. God Is A Plurality The Name Elohim It is generally agreed that Elohim is a plural noun having the masculine plural ending “im.” The very word Elohim used of the true God in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” is also used in Exodus ...