In my latest reading of W.D. Davies' The Gospel and the Land, there were two issues that stood out to me.
1.
First, there was the issue of the heavenly Jerusalem. According to
Davies, there's a notion in the pseudepigrapha that the heavenly
Jerusalem will one day come down to earth, at the time of Israel's
eschatological restoration and renewal. But, in the Tannaitic period,
there was more of a notion that the heavenly Jerusalem would remain in
heaven, meaning it would not descend to earth. As far as the
perspective that is in the New Testament is concerned, Davies notes that
the Book of Revelation presents a new Jerusalem coming from heaven to
earth, but that Revelation differs from strong elements of Judaism in
that Revelation depicts the heavenly city as lacking a Temple. Davies
also mentions New Testament passages that imply or talk about a heavenly
Zion or Jerusalem----in Galatians and Hebrews----but, as far as I could
see (and I could have missed something), Davies does not comment on
whether the authors of these passages believed that the new Jerusalem
would descend from heaven to earth.
Something on page 162 stood
out to me: "But God's habitat is not on earth: he is in heaven, and
Zion, therefore, must have a heavenly reality." The concept of a holy
mountain has long puzzled me. I've read that there was an ancient view
that gods inhabited a mountain----think Mount Olympus. Perhaps such a
view is in the Hebrew Bible as well, for God is said to dwell in Zion,
and Isaiah 14:13 depicts Helel (which the King James Version translates
as "Lucifer") attempting to exalt himself as he plots to sit on a
mountain in the sides of Zaphon. Isaiah 14 also depicts Helel
seeking to ascend to heaven above the stars, but perhaps Helel in the
story thinks that the mountain is so high that it reaches up to heaven
and is above the stars.
But maybe it was the case
that there were ancients who realized that earthly mountains were not
actually occupied by God or gods. In the case of ancient Jewish authors
who recognized this, how did they deal with passages about God dwelling
in Zion? Perhaps what they did was to say that God dwelt on a mountain
in heaven, not on earth, and that was how the concept of a heavenly
Zion developed.
2. Second, Davies discusses the issue of Paul's stance regarding the earthly Temple. Paul
believed that believers were a Temple (I Corinthians 3:16), but does
that mean that Paul dismissed the value of the earthly Temple? I have
not finished this chapter, so I do not currently know where Davies will
land on this issue. But what I got out of my latest reading was "not
necessarily". One reason Davies gives is that Qumran and the
Pharisees believed that they were somehow creating holy space that was
similar to what the Temple offered, and yet that did not mean that they
opposed an earthly Temple in Jerusalem. Qumran thought that the
Jerusalem Temple was corrupt, but it envisioned a time when Jerusalem
would be purified. And the Pharisees recognized the Jerusalem Temple.
Another reason is that Paul appears to present a picture in which Jesus
will come to earth, cleanse the earthly Temple of the man of sin, and
restore Israel (Romans 11:26; II Thessalonians 2).