Jerusalem.

The Dual City of God.

John C. Thorman
 Jerusalem. The Dual City of God.

During the tour of Israel with Dr. Moen and Rabbi Gorelik in October 2009, Bob Gorelik made
reference one evening to Jerusalem and the temple as being existent in heaven before the
creation of the world. Immediately upon hearing this statement I remembered the Greek
Philosophers and their metaphysics. Plato said that the perfect existed as an unchanging form
in the transcendent or eternal world of being, and that its copy or changeable and imperfect
appearance existed in the physical world of becoming that we experience as humans. Given the
tremendous influence that Greek Philosophy had on the early church fathers and their
construction of a systematic theology that synthesized Greek Philosophy with the Bible, Rabbi
Gorelik’s comments are very interesting. Is there really a perfect and transcendent Jerusalem
that exists in eternity and if so what impact does that have upon the believer in Yeshua as the
Messiah? Clearly, this teaching would have been easy for the early church fathers to embrace
as the popular philosophical position of Plato’s forms would integrate so easily if this was
already an accepted Hebrew concept.

The history of Jerusalem dates back to the 4th millennium B.C.E. making it one of the oldest
cities in the world. In Rabbi Robert R. Gorelik’s book, Israel-Tour Companion, Gorelik says that
Jerusalem appears in the Old Testament 669 times and Zion (which usually means Jerusalem,
although sometimes the Land of Israel) 154, for a total of 823 times in all. The New Testament
mentions Jerusalem 154 times and Zion 7 times (p.21). Under King David circa 1000 B.C.E.,
Jerusalem became the capital city of the nation of Israel and the epicenter of Israel’s religious
and cultural identity with the building of the first temple under King Solomon. It remains so to
this day and explains why Jerusalem is regarded as the most holy city for both the Jews and the
Christians. What is odd though is that the Muslims have their third most holy site, the Dome of
the Rock which is on the temple mount, in Jerusalem. There is some disagreement as to
whether the Muslim’s actually consider the city of Jerusalem itself as a holy city for their faith,
or if they just revere the holy site on temple mount. Regardless, the Muslim’s third most holy
site in the world is located in Jerusalem, behind Mecca and Medina, yet none of it is ever even
mentioned in the Koran.

According to Islam, the prophet Muhammad was miraculously transported from Mecca
to Jerusalem, and it was from there that he made his ascent to heaven. The Dome of the
Rock and the Al-Aksa Mosque, both built in the seventh century, made definitive the
identification of Jerusalem as the “Remote Place” that is mentioned in the Koran, and
thus a holy place after Mecca and Medina. Muslim rights on the Temple Mount, the site
of the two mosques, have not been infringed. Although it is the holiest site in Judaism,
Israel has left the Temple Mount under the control of Muslim religious authorities.
(Bard, par. 17)
The Muslims have fabricated and perpetuated quite a tale of how they captured the Christian
controlled city in 638 C.E. (see Gorelik’s Israel-Tour Companion, p. 22-24) and with a few short
periods of time as exceptions, the Muslims have basically controlled the temple mount area
ever since.

Today, Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel and its most populated city at approximately
760,000 residents. Jerusalem is located in the Judean Mountains; situated 60 kilometers (37
miles) east of Tel Aviv and the Mediterranean Sea and 35 kilometers (22 miles) west of the
northern tip of the Dead Sea. Jerusalem’s population from 1844 to 2009 is shown in the
following table:

Jerusalem’s Population

Year Jews Muslims Christians Total

1844 7,120 5,000 3,390 15,510

1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030

1896 28,112 8,560 8,748 45,420

1922 33,971 13,411 4,699 52,081

1931 51,222 19,894 19,335 90,451

1948 100,000 40,000 25,000 165,000

1967 195,700 54,963 12,646 263,309

1987 340,000 121,000 14,000 475,000

1990 378,200 131,800 14,400 524,400

2009 476,000 247,800 15,200 760,800

Table 1 (JewishVirtualLibrary.org)

The city of Jerusalem is unlike any other in the world. While she is known as the city of peace,
from its Semitic root s-l-m which means peace, this is perhaps the world’s greatest irony since
no other city in history has been more bitterly fought over.
 “There have been at least 118 separate conflicts in and for Jerusalem during the past
four millennia – conflicts that ranged from local religious struggles to strategic military
campaigns and that embraced everything in between. Jerusalem has been destroyed
completely at least twice, besieged twenty-three times, attacked an additional fifty-two
times, and captured and recaptured forty-four times. It has been the scene of twenty
revolts and innumerable riots, has had at least five separate periods of violent terrorist
attacks during the past century, and has only changed hands completely peacefully
twice in the past four thousand years” (Cline, p.2)

The city of Jerusalem has been at the center of controversy between the sons of Ishmael and
the sons of Isaac for well over a millennium now. The appearance is not one of victory for God’s
chosen people throughout history, but is that the reality?

An etymological investigation of Jerusalem produces much uncertainty, but the name is

generally understood to have a Semitic origin. According to The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary,
the name Jerusalem comes from:

An Egyptian notice from the third quarter of the nineteenth century B.C. mentions
Urusalimum. The Tell el Amarna correspondence of the fourteenth century B.C. refers to
the town as Urusalim. The Assyrians called it Ursalimmu. Modern scholars take these
names to mean “founded by the god Shalem,” a god of the Amorites (Jerusalem is said
to have been founded by Amorites and Hittites; Ezek. 16:3, 45). In time, however, the
second part of the name became associated with shalom (“peace”) in Hebrew minds,
and Jerusalem came to mean “city of peace”. Romans and Greeks called it Hierosolyma.
To the Arabs it is El Kuds, meaning “holy town”. (Unger, p. 675)

Sadly, Unger’s dictionary doesn’t get it right. Any examination into the origins of Jerusalem will
soon lead the investigator to Melchizedek and the deep mysteries of God that directly link
Melchizedek and Abraham with Jerusalem and with the Messiah.

The city of Jerusalem is first mentioned in the Old Testament as the city of Salem (Gen. 14:18)
and the city is tied directly to Melchizedek and Abram. “After Abram returned from defeating
Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the
valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley). Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread
and wine. He was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by
God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. And blessed be God Most High, who delivered
your enemies into your hand. (Gen. 14:17-20) It’s interesting to note here that while it makes
sense for the king of Sodom to be there following Abram’s victory, there doesn’t seem to be
any justification for Melchizedek’s presence, yet there he is.
According to Rabbi Gorelik’s audio teaching on his website (eshavbooks.org) called
“Melchizedek”, the name Melchizedek means king of righteousness. So, Melchizedek the king
of Salem (peace), is also a king of righteousness and according to the text itself, Melchizedek is
also a priest of God Most High. This is quite amazing because that means before Israel is ever a
nation and before the Abrahamic covenant is ever cut, there is Melchizedek; a king of
righteousness and peace, and a priest of God.

The Hebrew form of Jerusalem is Yerushalayim and it first appears in Joshua 10:1. Gorelik’s
teaching on Melchizedek says the name Yerushalayim is arrived at by connecting Melchizedek
and Abraham to this holy city at the same time so that neither one of them is offended. On the
one hand is Melchizedek, who possesses an eternal priesthood as seen in Psalms 110:4 and he
is the king of Salem. On the other hand there is Abraham who becomes the father of the nation
of Israel and the father of faith thru his obedience to God by taking Isaac up to Mount Moriah
and being willing to sacrifice him. Mount Moriah of course is the exact physical location where
centuries later Solomon built the temple in Jerusalem. Now, when Abraham reached the
summit, God called out to him and told him not to harm his son saying “Now I know that you
fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son” (Gen. 22:12). As a
result, Abraham called that spot “YHWH yireh” which means God sees, unfortunately our
English translation gets this verse wrong (Gen. 22:14). “You see, the text doesn’t say Abraham
named this place “The Lord Will Provide.” He names it YHWH yireh, a name we have
bastardized into Jehovah-Jireh. It literally means, “YHWH sees.” It is the interpretation of the
translator that coverts this verb into a statement about God providing” (Moen, par. 3) . Because
God sees, He saw Abraham’s need and then responded to it by providing a solution for
Abraham. So, according to Gorelik, by joining together the significant attributes of Abraham and
Melchizedek we get Yireh (from God sees) and Salem (from the city of peace) to arrive at Yireh-
Salem or God will see peace. As you can see, Yireh-Salem is pretty close to Yerushalayim.

This is where things begin to get really interesting! In Hebrew grammar the ending –im
indicates the plural and the ending –ayim indicates the dual. This has lead to the suggestion by
many that the name Yerushalayim refers to the fact that the city sits on two hills, or to signify
the upper and lower cities that comprised Jerusalem. However, this geographic justification for
the name does not adequately explain the dual nature of the city from a spiritual and eternal
perspective which one would expect from a Hebrew worldview, especially when we are dealing
with the significant mysteries of God. Consider other examples of God renaming people and
their spiritual significance, like Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel, and the given name of the
Messiah which is Yeshua (it’s not Jesus) because Yeshua means salvation. If one accepts the
rules of Hebrew grammar, then Yerushalayim means that there are actually dual or two
Jerusalem’s. Since there is only one, constantly changing appearance of Jerusalem on the earth,
the other Jerusalem, the dual Jerusalem must be the form; or the perfect transcendent
Jerusalem in heaven.

This is not the stretching of an overactive or hyper-spiritual imagination. There is ample biblical
evidence to fully support this position. And, given the tremendous significance that God Himself
and the Hebrew people placed on naming people and places; this needs to be taken seriously.

There is an eternal priesthood represented by Melchizedek that is later fulfilled by the Messiah
and there is an eternal sacrifice represented by Abraham being willing to offer his only son Isaac
that is later fulfilled by the Messiah too. It is only fitting and logical then that there also be an
eternal city of Jerusalem that is represented later by an actual physical city which is fulfilled
under King David for the nation of Israel.

But there’s more. A physical dwelling for God’s Name was required on earth as God instructed
Israel throughout the Old Testament saying there will be a “place the LORD your God will
choose as a dwelling for his Name” (Deuteronomy 12:5,11,21. Cf., 14;23-24; 16:2,6,11; 26:2;
1Kings 5:5; 8:29; Nehemiah 1:9; Psalms 74:7; Jeremiah 7:14). Since God’s name is eternal, “Your
name, O LORD, is everlasting, Your remembrance, O LORD, throughout all generations” (Ps
135:13), it stands to reason that His Name must also then have an eternal dwelling place, which
is the perfect form. The existence of this eternal and perfect form can also be seen in the
instructions given to Moses on how to fashion the tabernacle. “Make this tabernacle and all its
furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you” (Exodus 25:9). “See that you make them
according to the pattern shown you on the mountain” (Exodus 25:40). “Set up the tabernacle
according to the plan shown you on the mountain” (Exodus 26:30). “Make the altar hollow, out
of boards. It is to be made just as you were shown on the mountain” (Exodus 27:8). What
exactly is the pattern that God showed Moses? The word pattern that is used in the previous
verses is the Hebrew word tabniyth (strong’s # 8403) which means structure; by implication a
model, resemblance: figure, form, likeness, pattern, similitude. It comes from a primitive root
that means to build, rebuild, or cause to continue or be permanent. From this we can say that
what God showed Moses was the actual perfect eternal form that was reality. It was the perfect
heavenly structure that Moses used in replicating it and making it appear on the earth.

The real and eternally existent nature of God’s kingdom, His holy city Jerusalem and His Temple
is presented repeatedly in the Psalms. The following three verses all use the same Hebrew word
owlam (strong’s #5769) which means time out of mind (past or future) which by definition
means that it is eternal. “The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, “You are a priest
forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” (Ps 110:4). “Those who trust in the LORD Are as
Mount Zion, which cannot be moved but abides forever” (Ps 125:1) and “Your kingdom is an
everlasting kingdom, And Your dominion endures throughout all generations” (Ps 145:13). For a
priest to function in an eternal kingdom, it logically follows that he would also require an
eternal temple in an eternal Jerusalem.

Not only is the existence of an eternal perfect form in heaven made clear in the Old Testament,
but God’s progressive revelation continues with the author of the book of Hebrews when he
writes “They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why
Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make
everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain” (Hebrews 8:5) It is further
demonstrated in climatic fashion by John in Revelation 21:2 where it is said, “And I John saw
the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride
adorned for her husband.

The most significant implication of this dual Jerusalem concerns the perfect sacrifice of Yeshua
to pay the debt of all the sins committed by every living soul in the world, from Adam and Eve
to all those who are yet to come. Yeshua’s execution on the cross at Golgotha and his
subsequent resurrection must have been a copy of what had already taken place in heaven!
The Son of God must have been sacrificed on the perfect altar, in the perfect temple, in the
perfect holy city of Jerusalem. This happened of course in heaven before the creation of the
world because that is reality. His execution as a man in the earthly Jerusalem must have been a
copy of that reality. If this is not true, then all those souls before Yeshua, all those who believed
into God and had placed their faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would not have
had the penalty of their sins completely paid for. This sin stained state would have prevented
them from having a direct and personal relationship with a Holy God. But, the patriarchs and
those God fearing souls before them did in fact have a relationship with God. They loved God,
worshiped God, heard from God, and interacted with God. Judaism’s sacrificial system was only
a dim copy of what Yeshua had already done perfectly for them in reality, and would do in
appearance as the only begotten in the future. The sacrificial system was another step in the
progressive revelation of God’s perfect eternal plan. But, it was an early foundational and
necessary step in that plan. The sacrifices were a physical manifestation, an appearance of the
eternal reality so the Hebrews and the rest of mankind could understand the tremendous
weight and consequence of sin before a Holy God and thus their need for the Messiah. The
sacrificial system itself didn’t save anyone; it was merely the prescription for approaching the
Holy God of creation by ensuring the ritual purification for those sins committed unintentionally
and its efficacy was limited to pay for only those sins committed unintentionally. There was no
sacrifice in the Mosaic Law sufficient to pay for the sins of man that were committed
intentionally!

So, the social impact of deliberate sin becomes the concern of the judicial system but
the religious and spiritual impact of deliberate sin oversteps the sacrificial provision and
 rests entirely with God.  Until God dealt with this critical issue, no man – from Adam to
the present day – could be forgiven of his intentional violations of holiness.  God did
deal with this issue in the perfect sacrifice of His Son “before the foundation of the
world.”  It is on this basis alone that there is forgiveness of deliberate sin.  The Old
Testament and the New Testament do not present two opposing means for forgiveness. 
They present one uniform, eternal provision. (Moen, par. 7)

So, the Messiah’s coming, His appearance on earth and the shedding of His innocent blood
fulfilled or made complete what had already happened in heaven. The shed blood of the
Messiah was the visible manifestation to mankind of what had already taken place, just as the
Mosaic Law was a copy of heaven’s events.

“The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming – not the realities
themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year
after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship… But those sacrifices are an
annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take
away sins.” (Hebrews 10:1-4)

Why did God demand the sacrifices of the Mosaic Law if they couldn’t remove sins? “It was
necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but
the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these” (Hebrews 9:23). Well, the
sacrifices were indeed efficacious at removing the debt of unintentional sin and to provide for
ritual purity so one could approach the holy God. But, none of them were permanent so they
had to be repeated continually, and none of the sacrifices provided for sins that were
committed intentionally. That’s why Yeshua had to die, and he died on earth as a copy of what
He had already completed perfectly in heaven before the creation of the world.

Yeshua, as our eternal high priest in the order of Melchizedek would have offered a single
sacrifice on behalf of all the people of the world. Yeshua would not have offered a sacrifice on
behalf of himself because he was a perfect high priest. He offered the ultimate sacrifice,
himself, on heaven’s altar on behalf of all people before the creation of the world. Then He
would make his appearance on the earth to do it again in our sight. This truth can be seen in
the Messianic prophesies in Isaiah 53, and again in Hebrews. In Isaiah 53 we have a prophetic
voice declaring the coming of a Messiah for our redemption, describing the actions in a past
tense, indicating that they have already happened yet they are going to happen in the future.
“But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment
that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.” (Isa 53:5) The author
of Hebrews wrote, “When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here,
he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say,
not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he
entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal
redemption” (Hebrews 9:11-12).

So, did Plato read the Hebrew Scriptures? What or Who were his influences that allowed him to
articulate an idea of an imperfect world of becoming that was separate and yet connected to
the transcendent and perfect world of being? Plato was born in Athens in 427 B.C. and died in
347 B.C. which was the quiet time between the testaments. Jerusalem and Solomon’s temple
were destroyed by Babylon in 586 B.C., and the Jews didn’t rebuild the temple until 516 B.C.
However, the city of Jerusalem wasn’t rebuilt and the spiritual vitality of the nation restored
until the time of Nehemiah and Ezra around 444 B.C. or just prior to Plato’s birth. Is there a
connection to the decline and fall of Israel and Judah in the east and the proliferation of Greek
Philosophy in the west? While interesting to consider the implications of Israel’s disobedience
and subsequent judgment on the spiritual and philosophical development of the world, Dr.
Moen reminded me about the motivation behind Plato’s concept. The issue for Plato was the
eternal versus the temporal. Dr. Moen told me, “It isn’t necessary for him [Plato] to be
influenced by any Hebrew thought in order to come to grips with the passing away of all that
we observe. That sets the mind on a quest for what is permanent. Plato reaches the conclusion
of another universe but without the instruction of the divine, so it becomes a universe of
eternal forms rather than relationships. That is in concert with the Greek linguistic structure of
things.”

The Bible does reveal to us God’s pattern of a heavenly and eternal Jerusalem first, and then a
dual Jerusalem on the earth second. And, Plato rightly discerns God’s created order when he
articulated the distinction between the eternal or transcendent form, from the temporal copy
or appearance on earth; and he did it without divine inspiration.

The dramatic and significant lesson in this is that before God created the world and set in
motion the events of history, YHWH had already redeemed mankind from their future sins in
the first Jerusalem with the perfect sacrifice of the Messiah on heaven’s altar.

Works Cited
Bard, Mitchell. Jerusalem An Introduction. Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved on January 14, 2010
from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Jerusalem.html

Cline, Eric H. (2004). Jerusalem Besieged: From Ancient Canaan to Modern Israel. University of
Michigan Press. Retrieved January 13, 2010 from http://www.amazon.com/Jerusalem-
Besieged-Ancient-Canaan- Modern/dp/0472113135#reader_0472113135

Gorelik, Robert E. (2007). Israel-Tour Companion. Eshav books. Tustin California.

Gorelik, Robert E. (2007). Melchizedek. Eshavbooks.org. Retrieved January 12, 2010 from
http://www.eshavbooks.org/00-latest.htm

Moen, Skip Ph.D. (2009). Linguistically Challenged. Skip Moen.com. Retrieved January 15, 2010
from http://skipmoen.com/2009/08/09/linguistically-challenged/

Moen, Skip, Ph.D. (2009). Law and Grace: Part 3. SkipMoen.com. Retrieved January 14, 2010
from http://skipmoen.com/2009/11/28/law-and-grace-part-3/

Strong, James. (1995). The Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of Bible. Thomas Nelson
Publishers. Nashville, Tennessee.

The Holy Bible. New International Version. (Revised August 1983). International Bible Society.

Table 1. Jerusalem An Introduction. By Mitchell Bard. Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved on

January 14, 2010 from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Jerusalem.html

Unger, Merrill F. (1988). The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary. Moody Press. Chicago, Illinois.