21
New heaven, new earth
1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, because the first heaven and the first earth had passed away;* “The first earth”, not the second, or whatever. This statement would seem to go against the ‘gap’ theory in Genesis 1:1. also, the ocean was no more.† Apparently there will be no water in the new earth; I take it that our glorified bodies will require neither food nor drink (so there will be no body waste to dispose of). 2 And I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared like a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying: “Take note, the tabernacle of God is with men and He will dwell with them, and they will be His people. Yes, God Himself will be with them. 4 And He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there will be no more death nor sorrow nor crying nor pain‡ Without the separation of death, without pain and sorrow, there will be no occasion for tears.—they will exist no more because the first things have gone.”
5 Then He who sat on the throne§ Since the last throne mentioned is the Great White Throne, and since all judgment has been committed to the Son (John 5:22), I conclude that the speaker is Jehovah the Son. said, “Take note, I make everything new!” And He says to me, “Write, because these words are true and faithful!”* “These word s are true and faithful”—the guarantee extends to the individual words. If a word is true, then it cannot be false; if a word is faithful, then it cannot be designed to deceive us. Conclusion: the words of this book are to be taken at face value, according to the norms of language. 6 Then He said to me: “I have become the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End.† “I have become”—this seems awkward, so a small minority of the Greek manuscripts changed it to the familiar ‘It is done’. But in order to be the Boss at both the beginning and the end, you have to be the greatest, and survive all challenges. All human history has been involved in Satan's challenge of that supremacy. Because of that challenge, and because only at this point has that challenge been definitively put down, Jehovah the Son says, “I have become”. To the one who thirsts I will give of the spring of the water of Life freely. 7 He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be God to him and he will be a son to me. 8 But as for the cowardly‡ Does it surprise you that “cowardly” is in this list? In Matthew 10:32-33 we read: “Everyone who will confess me before men, I will also confess him before my father who is in the heavens. But whoever should deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in the heavens.” See also Luke 12:8-9 and 1 John 2:23. Presumably the Lord is referring to our attitude in the face of opposition or persecution. Anyone who caves in under pressure and disowns the Lord is out. and unbelieving and sinners§ Both the TR and the so-called critical text omit “and sinners”, so most versions do as well, but two of the three main independent lines of transmission (including the best one) have the phrase. and abominable and murderers and fornicators and sorcerers and idolaters, and all who are false,* That is what the Text says; instead of the noun ‘liar’ we find the adjective “false” (all the preceding descriptions are nouns, with one participle = “abominable”). their portion is in the Lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
The New Jerusalem
9 Then† Actually the Text has “and”—John saw the visions in this order, but they will not necessarily happen in this order. I imagine that the New Jerusalem belongs to the Millennium (for reasons I will give below). one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and spoke with me saying, “Come, I will show you the woman, the Lamb's bride.”‡ It seems to me to be unarguable that both Israel (the gates) and the Church (the foundations) participate in the New Jerusalem. (In fact, I imagine that the redeemed of all ages, up to the beginning of the Millennium, will be involved.) The rendering, “the woman [or, wife], the Lamb's bride”, is based on over half of the Greek manuscripts, two of the three main independent lines of transmission (including the best one). In Jeremiah 3:20 and Hosea 2 Israel is presented as the wife of Jehovah—but in the OT wherever God interacts directly with the human race it is always Jehovah the Son. Passages like Matthew 25:10, John 3:29, 2 Corinthians 11:2 and Ephesians 5:25-27, 31-32 point to the Church as the bride of Christ (who is Jehovah the Son). So here the two come together—the wife, the bride—but maintain a distinct identity (gates are one thing and foundations are another)—indeed, nowhere does the Bible ever confuse Israel and the Church (not even in Galatians 6:16, as I can demonstrate to anyone who wishes to pursue the matter). But if the Church is still a “bride”, then the wedding has not happened yet, which is my first reason for placing this scene at the beginning of the Millennium. 10 So he transported me in spirit to a great and high mountain and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, 11 having the splendor of God. Her radiance was similar to a most precious stone, like a crystalline jasper stone; 12 she had a tremendous, high wall with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names inscribed, namely the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel; 13  looking from the east, three gates, and from the north, three gates, and from the south, three gates, and from the west, three gates. 14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them twelve names, of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.§ I wonder, who replaces the Iscariot? Besides the Twelve, the only one who was personally chosen by Jesus was Saul of Tarsus. 15 Now he who spoke with me had a measure, a golden reed, so that he might measure the city and her gates.* The evidence is badly divided here, but I take it that two of the three main independent lines of transmission (including the best one), do not add “and her wall”, which is read by most versions since both the TR and the so-called critical text so read. Two thousand years ago a city wall was a barrier to protect the city from attack, but the following context here makes clear that the wall was part of the structure. The city is a cube, like a modern high-rise, which is a recent concept in architecture. Many early copyists presumably assumed that the wall was distinct from the city and officiously altered the text. The angel measured precisely the city and her gates; see the next note. 16 The city is laid out as a square; that is, her length is equal to her width. So he measured the city with the reed at twelve thousand and twelve stadia.† Over half of the Greek manuscripts, two of the three main independent lines of transmission (including the best one), read “and twelve”—a surprising bit of precise detail. But consider—12,000 stadia, twelve gates—if the gates are evenly spaced, as seems likely, we have a thousand stadia between gates; or is it 1,001 stadia? I will argue below that each gate was one stadium wide, which nicely explains the precise number, twelve thousand and twelve! Her length and width and height are equal.‡ The city is a cube, the total measurement being about 1,350 miles! But does it mean the circumference or is it referring to the three dimensions? If it refers to the circumference we divide by four and each side is about 340 miles long, and of course the height is also 340 miles. If we divide by three each dimension is about 450 miles. In either event, we have one incredibly large city! But because of the twelve gates and 12,000 stadia I really believe that the angel measured the circumference. 17 And he measured her wall, one hundred and forty-four cubits,§ That is about 70 yards; since we already know that the wall is hundreds of miles high, the reference here must be to the thickness of the wall. I take it that the wall was part of the structure, like in a modern high-rise, not like a fence (with no enemies there is no need for a fence—in fact, verse 25 makes clear that even the gates will never be closed). the measure of a man (which is of an angel).* This is curious; apparently angels use the same measurement as humans. But then, with reference to things on this earth, why wouldn't they? 18 The material of her wall was jasper,† See verse 11 above. and the city was pure gold, like clear glass. 19 And the foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with all kinds of precious stones: the first foundation had jasper, the second sapphire, the third chalcedony, the fourth emerald, 20 the fifth sardonyx, the sixth carnelian, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, the twelfth amethyst.‡ Each foundation was adorned with a different kind of stone. But how were the twelve foundations arranged, piled up or side by side? Presumably the gates were evenly spaced, with 1,000 stadia between each pair, so perhaps each such space represented an Apostle and had a different precious stone. 21 And the twelve gates are twelve pearls; each individual gate was composed of one pearl.§ Are not doors and gates usually wider than the wall is thick? The wall here is some 70 yards thick. I propose that each pearl was 200 yards (one stadium) wide (some pearl!), but notice in verse 25 that the gates were never closed, which means that they always remained in one position, hence no wear and tear on the ‘hinges’. But imagine that we are on that tremendously high mountain with John, and that we are perpendicular to the middle of one wall and at a distance of 50 miles. We are looking at a monstrous wall 340 miles square; it merely fills the horizon. At the base of the wall, evenly spaced (some 110 miles between them), are three gates. Would a gate 200 yards wide be out of proportion? Given the size of the wall, such gates might even seem small! And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass.* The ‘gold’ here is evidently different from the gold we know; John does not say that it looked like gold, he says it was gold.
Her glory
22 I saw no sanctuary in her, because the Lord God, the Almighty, and the Lamb are her sanctuary. 23 And the city has no need of the sun or the moon, that they should shine on her, because the very glory of God illumines her, and the Lamb is her light. 24 And the nations will walk in her light, and the kings of the earth† “Kings of the earth”—we are still on the earth, with kings and nations coming and going, which is my second reason for placing the New Jerusalem during the Millennium. bring their glory and honor into her. 25 Her gates will absolutely not be closed by day (and no night will exist there). 26 And they will bring the glory and the honor of the nations into her. 27 But anything ‘common’‡ That is, defiled or profane; perhaps anything not consecrated to God. or anyone perpetrating an abomination or a lie will absolutely not enter her;§ Connecting this statement with 22:15, we have all sorts of nasty people outside the city. After the Millennium and the Great White Throne they will be in the Lake of fire, so if they are still circulating on this earth, it must be during the Millennium, which is my third reason. Because of 22:15 I am inclined to suppose that the New Jerusalem will rest on the earth (not be a satellite, as some argue). But if so, where? The desert east of Jordan is hundreds of miles square with very few inhabitants, and relatively plane, yet quite close to the present Jerusalem. Perhaps there. only those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life.* So why else did you think there was an angel stationed at each gate (21:12)?

*21:1 “The first earth”, not the second, or whatever. This statement would seem to go against the ‘gap’ theory in Genesis 1:1.

†21:1 Apparently there will be no water in the new earth; I take it that our glorified bodies will require neither food nor drink (so there will be no body waste to dispose of).

‡21:4 Without the separation of death, without pain and sorrow, there will be no occasion for tears.

§21:5 Since the last throne mentioned is the Great White Throne, and since all judgment has been committed to the Son (John 5:22), I conclude that the speaker is Jehovah the Son.

*21:5 “These word s are true and faithful”—the guarantee extends to the individual words. If a word is true, then it cannot be false; if a word is faithful, then it cannot be designed to deceive us. Conclusion: the words of this book are to be taken at face value, according to the norms of language.

†21:6 “I have become”—this seems awkward, so a small minority of the Greek manuscripts changed it to the familiar ‘It is done’. But in order to be the Boss at both the beginning and the end, you have to be the greatest, and survive all challenges. All human history has been involved in Satan's challenge of that supremacy. Because of that challenge, and because only at this point has that challenge been definitively put down, Jehovah the Son says, “I have become”.

‡21:8 Does it surprise you that “cowardly” is in this list? In Matthew 10:32-33 we read: “Everyone who will confess me before men, I will also confess him before my father who is in the heavens. But whoever should deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in the heavens.” See also Luke 12:8-9 and 1 John 2:23. Presumably the Lord is referring to our attitude in the face of opposition or persecution. Anyone who caves in under pressure and disowns the Lord is out.

§21:8 Both the TR and the so-called critical text omit “and sinners”, so most versions do as well, but two of the three main independent lines of transmission (including the best one) have the phrase.

*21:8 That is what the Text says; instead of the noun ‘liar’ we find the adjective “false” (all the preceding descriptions are nouns, with one participle = “abominable”).

†21:9 Actually the Text has “and”—John saw the visions in this order, but they will not necessarily happen in this order. I imagine that the New Jerusalem belongs to the Millennium (for reasons I will give below).

‡21:9 It seems to me to be unarguable that both Israel (the gates) and the Church (the foundations) participate in the New Jerusalem. (In fact, I imagine that the redeemed of all ages, up to the beginning of the Millennium, will be involved.) The rendering, “the woman [or, wife], the Lamb's bride”, is based on over half of the Greek manuscripts, two of the three main independent lines of transmission (including the best one). In Jeremiah 3:20 and Hosea 2 Israel is presented as the wife of Jehovah—but in the OT wherever God interacts directly with the human race it is always Jehovah the Son. Passages like Matthew 25:10, John 3:29, 2 Corinthians 11:2 and Ephesians 5:25-27, 31-32 point to the Church as the bride of Christ (who is Jehovah the Son). So here the two come together—the wife, the bride—but maintain a distinct identity (gates are one thing and foundations are another)—indeed, nowhere does the Bible ever confuse Israel and the Church (not even in Galatians 6:16, as I can demonstrate to anyone who wishes to pursue the matter). But if the Church is still a “bride”, then the wedding has not happened yet, which is my first reason for placing this scene at the beginning of the Millennium.

§21:14 I wonder, who replaces the Iscariot? Besides the Twelve, the only one who was personally chosen by Jesus was Saul of Tarsus.

*21:15 The evidence is badly divided here, but I take it that two of the three main independent lines of transmission (including the best one), do not add “and her wall”, which is read by most versions since both the TR and the so-called critical text so read. Two thousand years ago a city wall was a barrier to protect the city from attack, but the following context here makes clear that the wall was part of the structure. The city is a cube, like a modern high-rise, which is a recent concept in architecture. Many early copyists presumably assumed that the wall was distinct from the city and officiously altered the text. The angel measured precisely the city and her gates; see the next note.

†21:16 Over half of the Greek manuscripts, two of the three main independent lines of transmission (including the best one), read “and twelve”—a surprising bit of precise detail. But consider—12,000 stadia, twelve gates—if the gates are evenly spaced, as seems likely, we have a thousand stadia between gates; or is it 1,001 stadia? I will argue below that each gate was one stadium wide, which nicely explains the precise number, twelve thousand and twelve!

‡21:16 The city is a cube, the total measurement being about 1,350 miles! But does it mean the circumference or is it referring to the three dimensions? If it refers to the circumference we divide by four and each side is about 340 miles long, and of course the height is also 340 miles. If we divide by three each dimension is about 450 miles. In either event, we have one incredibly large city! But because of the twelve gates and 12,000 stadia I really believe that the angel measured the circumference.

§21:17 That is about 70 yards; since we already know that the wall is hundreds of miles high, the reference here must be to the thickness of the wall. I take it that the wall was part of the structure, like in a modern high-rise, not like a fence (with no enemies there is no need for a fence—in fact, verse 25 makes clear that even the gates will never be closed).

*21:17 This is curious; apparently angels use the same measurement as humans. But then, with reference to things on this earth, why wouldn't they?

†21:18 See verse 11 above.

‡21:20 Each foundation was adorned with a different kind of stone. But how were the twelve foundations arranged, piled up or side by side? Presumably the gates were evenly spaced, with 1,000 stadia between each pair, so perhaps each such space represented an Apostle and had a different precious stone.

§21:21 Are not doors and gates usually wider than the wall is thick? The wall here is some 70 yards thick. I propose that each pearl was 200 yards (one stadium) wide (some pearl!), but notice in verse 25 that the gates were never closed, which means that they always remained in one position, hence no wear and tear on the ‘hinges’. But imagine that we are on that tremendously high mountain with John, and that we are perpendicular to the middle of one wall and at a distance of 50 miles. We are looking at a monstrous wall 340 miles square; it merely fills the horizon. At the base of the wall, evenly spaced (some 110 miles between them), are three gates. Would a gate 200 yards wide be out of proportion? Given the size of the wall, such gates might even seem small!

*21:21 The ‘gold’ here is evidently different from the gold we know; John does not say that it looked like gold, he says it was gold.

†21:24 “Kings of the earth”—we are still on the earth, with kings and nations coming and going, which is my second reason for placing the New Jerusalem during the Millennium.

‡21:27 That is, defiled or profane; perhaps anything not consecrated to God.

§21:27 Connecting this statement with 22:15, we have all sorts of nasty people outside the city. After the Millennium and the Great White Throne they will be in the Lake of fire, so if they are still circulating on this earth, it must be during the Millennium, which is my third reason. Because of 22:15 I am inclined to suppose that the New Jerusalem will rest on the earth (not be a satellite, as some argue). But if so, where? The desert east of Jordan is hundreds of miles square with very few inhabitants, and relatively plane, yet quite close to the present Jerusalem. Perhaps there.

*21:27 So why else did you think there was an angel stationed at each gate (21:12)?

© 2016 Wilbur N. Pickering, ThM, PhD