Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Revelation 21

The new heavens and earth were foreseen by Isaiah (Isaiah 65:17) as a part of his vision of the renewed Jerusalem. John’s picture of the final age to come focuses not on a platonic ideal heaven or distant paradise but on the reality of a new earth and heaven. God originally created the earth and heaven to be our permanent home. But sin and death entered the world and transformed the earth into a place of rebellion and alienation; it became enemy-occupied territory. But God has been working in salvation history to effect a total reversal of this evil consequence and to liberate earth and heaven from bondage to sin, corruption, and death (cf. v.4; Romans 8:21). John’s emphasis on heaven and earth is not primarily cosmological but moral and spiritual (cf. also 2 Peter 3:13).

The Greek word for “new” (GK 2785) means new in quality rather than new in time. That it is a “new” heaven and earth and not a second heaven and earth suggests something of an endless succession of new heavens and earth. It is the newness of the endless eschatological ages (2:17; 3:12; 5:9; cf. Eph2:7). What makes the new heaven and earth “new” is above all the reality that now “the dwelling of God is with men.... They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God” (v.3). The heaven and earth are new because of the presence of a new community of people who are loyal to God and the Lamb in contrast to the former community of idolaters.

The sea—the source of the satanic beast (13:1) and the place of the dead (20:13)—will be gone. Again, John’s emphasis is not geographic but moral and spiritual. The sea serves as an archetype with connotations of evil (cf. comment on 13:1). Thus, no trace of evil in any form will be present in the new creation.

The Holy City, the New Jerusalem, occupies John’s vision for the remainder of the book. First, he sees the city “coming down out of heaven from God”—a phrase used three times (3:12; 21:2, 10) in an apparent spatial reference. But the city never seems to come down; it is always in the process of descending from heaven. Therefore, the expression stresses the idea that the city is a gift of God, forever bearing the marks of his creation.

Second, John calls the city a “bride” (GK 3813; cf. 21:9, 22:17; cf. also 19:7–8, where a different word was used). The purity and devotedness of the bride are reflected in her attire. The multiple imagery is needed to portray the tremendous reality of the city. A bride-city captures something of God’s personal relationship to his people (the bride) as well as something of their life in communion with him and one another (a city, with its social connotations).

The subtitle of the Holy City, “the new Jerusalem,” raises a question. The “old” Jerusalem was also called the “holy city” and a “bride” (Isaiah 52:1; Isaiah 61:10).

Since the Jerusalem from above is the “new” Jerusalem, we may suppose that it is connected in some manner with the old one so that the new is the old one renewed. The old Jerusalem was marred by sin and disobedience. In it was the blood of prophets and apostles. Still worse, it became a manifestation of Babylon the Great when it crucified the Lord of glory (11:8). But the old city always involved more than the mere inhabitants and their daily lives. It represented the covenant community of God’s people, the hope for the kingdom of God on earth. Thus the OT looked forward to a renewed Jerusalem, rebuilt and transformed into a glorious habitation of God and his people. But the prophets also saw something else. They saw a new heaven and new earth and a Jerusalem connected with this reality. Thus it is not altogether clear precisely what the relationship is between the old and the new, the earthly, restored Jerusalem of the prophets and the Jerusalem associated with the new heaven and earth (cf. Galatians 4:25–31; Hebrews 11:10; Hebrews 12:22; Hebrews 13:14).

The key to the puzzle must be understood with due respect for the old city.

Any exegesis, therefore, that completely rejects any connection with the old city cannot take seriously the name “new” Jerusalem, which presupposes the old. To speak of the heavenly Jerusalem does not deny an earthly city, as some suggest, but stresses its superiority and affirms the eschatological nature of Jewish hope —a hope that could not be fulfilled by the earthly Jerusalem but which John sees realized in the Holy City of the future. This city is the church in its future glorified existence. It is the final realization of the kingdom of God.

God’s “dwelling” (GK 5008) among his people (v.3) is a fulfillment of Lev 26:11–13, a promise given to the old Jerusalem but forfeited because of apostasy. As a backdrop for the scene, consider Ge 3, when humanity lost their fellowship with God (cf. Exodus 25:8; Ezekiel 37:26–27). Thus the holy Jerusalem is not only humanity’s eternal home but the city where God will place his own name forever. God’s presence will blot out the things of the former creation. In a touching metaphor of motherly love, John says that God “will wipe away every tear from their eyes” (cf. 7:17; Isaiah 25:8). These tears have come from sin’s distortion of God’s purposes for the human race. God now has defeated the enemy of humankind and liberated his people and his creation.

The Holy City, the New Jerusalem, occupies John’s vision for the remainder of the book. First, he sees the city “coming down out of heaven from God”—a phrase used three times (3:12; 21:2, 10) in an apparent spatial reference. But the city never seems to come down; it is always in the process of descending from heaven. Therefore, the expression stresses the idea that the city is a gift of God, forever bearing the marks of his creation.

Second, John calls the city a “bride” (GK 3813; cf. 21:9, 22:17; cf. also 19:7–8, where a different word was used). The purity and devotedness of the bride are reflected in her attire. The multiple imagery is needed to portray the tremendous reality of the city. A bride-city captures something of God’s personal relationship to his people (the bride) as well as something of their life in communion with him and one another (a city, with its social connotations).

The subtitle of the Holy City, “the new Jerusalem,” raises a question. The “old” Jerusalem was also called the “holy city” and a “bride” (Isaiah 52:1; Isaiah 61:10).

Since the Jerusalem from above is the “new” Jerusalem, we may suppose that it is connected in some manner with the old one so that the new is the old one renewed. The old Jerusalem was marred by sin and disobedience. In it was the blood of prophets and apostles. Still worse, it became a manifestation of Babylon the Great when it crucified the Lord of glory (11:8). But the old city always involved more than the mere inhabitants and their daily lives. It represented the covenant community of God’s people, the hope for the kingdom of God on earth. Thus the OT looked forward to a renewed Jerusalem, rebuilt and transformed into a glorious habitation of God and his people. But the prophets also saw something else. They saw a new heaven and new earth and a Jerusalem connected with this reality. Thus it is not altogether clear precisely what the relationship is between the old and the new, the earthly, restored Jerusalem of the prophets and the Jerusalem associated with the new heaven and earth (cf. Galatians 4:25–31; Hebrews 11:10; Hebrews 12:22; Hebrews 13:14).

The key to the puzzle must be understood with due respect for the old city.

Any exegesis, therefore, that completely rejects any connection with the old city cannot take seriously the name “new” Jerusalem, which presupposes the old. To speak of the heavenly Jerusalem does not deny an earthly city, as some suggest, but stresses its superiority and affirms the eschatological nature of Jewish hope —a hope that could not be fulfilled by the earthly Jerusalem but which John sees realized in the Holy City of the future. This city is the church in its future glorified existence. It is the final realization of the kingdom of God.

God’s “dwelling” (GK 5008) among his people (v.3) is a fulfillment of Lev 26:11–13, a promise given to the old Jerusalem but forfeited because of apostasy. As a backdrop for the scene, consider Ge 3, when humanity lost their fellowship with God (cf. Exodus 25:8; Ezekiel 37:26–27). Thus the holy Jerusalem is not only humanity’s eternal home but the city where God will place his own name forever. God’s presence will blot out the things of the former creation. In a touching metaphor of motherly love, John says that God “will wipe away every tear from their eyes” (cf. 7:17; Isaiah 25:8). These tears have come from sin’s distortion of God’s purposes for the human race. God now has defeated the enemy of humankind and liberated his people and his creation.

The Holy City, the New Jerusalem, occupies John’s vision for the remainder of the book. First, he sees the city “coming down out of heaven from God”—a phrase used three times (3:12; 21:2, 10) in an apparent spatial reference. But the city never seems to come down; it is always in the process of descending from heaven. Therefore, the expression stresses the idea that the city is a gift of God, forever bearing the marks of his creation.

Second, John calls the city a “bride” (GK 3813; cf. 21:9, 22:17; cf. also 19:7–8, where a different word was used). The purity and devotedness of the bride are reflected in her attire. The multiple imagery is needed to portray the tremendous reality of the city. A bride-city captures something of God’s personal relationship to his people (the bride) as well as something of their life in communion with him and one another (a city, with its social connotations).

The subtitle of the Holy City, “the new Jerusalem,” raises a question. The “old” Jerusalem was also called the “holy city” and a “bride” (Isaiah 52:1; Isaiah 61:10).

Since the Jerusalem from above is the “new” Jerusalem, we may suppose that it is connected in some manner with the old one so that the new is the old one renewed. The old Jerusalem was marred by sin and disobedience. In it was the blood of prophets and apostles. Still worse, it became a manifestation of Babylon the Great when it crucified the Lord of glory (11:8). But the old city always involved more than the mere inhabitants and their daily lives. It represented the covenant community of God’s people, the hope for the kingdom of God on earth. Thus the OT looked forward to a renewed Jerusalem, rebuilt and transformed into a glorious habitation of God and his people. But the prophets also saw something else. They saw a new heaven and new earth and a Jerusalem connected with this reality. Thus it is not altogether clear precisely what the relationship is between the old and the new, the earthly, restored Jerusalem of the prophets and the Jerusalem associated with the new heaven and earth (cf. Galatians 4:25–31; Hebrews 11:10; Hebrews 12:22; Hebrews 13:14).

The key to the puzzle must be understood with due respect for the old city.

Any exegesis, therefore, that completely rejects any connection with the old city cannot take seriously the name “new” Jerusalem, which presupposes the old. To speak of the heavenly Jerusalem does not deny an earthly city, as some suggest, but stresses its superiority and affirms the eschatological nature of Jewish hope —a hope that could not be fulfilled by the earthly Jerusalem but which John sees realized in the Holy City of the future. This city is the church in its future glorified existence. It is the final realization of the kingdom of God.

God’s “dwelling” (GK 5008) among his people (v.3) is a fulfillment of Lev 26:11–13, a promise given to the old Jerusalem but forfeited because of apostasy. As a backdrop for the scene, consider Ge 3, when humanity lost their fellowship with God (cf. Exodus 25:8; Ezekiel 37:26–27). Thus the holy Jerusalem is not only humanity’s eternal home but the city where God will place his own name forever. God’s presence will blot out the things of the former creation. In a touching metaphor of motherly love, John says that God “will wipe away every tear from their eyes” (cf. 7:17; Isaiah 25:8). These tears have come from sin’s distortion of God’s purposes for the human race. God now has defeated the enemy of humankind and liberated his people and his creation.

For the second time in the book, God himself speaks (cf. 1:8). From his throne comes the assurance that the One who created the first heaven and earth will indeed make “everything new.” This confirms that God’s power will be revealed and his redemptive purposes fulfilled. Since these words are God’s words (cf. 19:9; 22:6), it is important that this vision of the new heaven and the New Jerusalem be proclaimed to the churches.