The Eternal State--21:1--22:21, Part 2

III. THE FUTURE (“THE THINGS WHICH SHALL BE HEREAFTER"), PART 2b--6:1-22:21
E. The Eternal State--21:1--22:21, Part 2
1. The new Jerusalem--21:1-22:5
c. The new Jerusalem itself--21:9-22:5
    (I) Its description--vv. 9-21
(A) The Bride, the Lamb's wife
(1) Thus involves the church
(2) Angel is to show John the Bride, but is shown a city.
(a) John was not mixed up nor was the angel.
(b) Obviously it is both.
(B) A great city
(1) Called "Holy Jerusalem"
(2) Vast in size
(a) Was foursquare
((I)) Could mean it is cubic in shape (so Newell, 341)
((II)) Could mean that it is pyramid in shape with the base thereof square. This is suggested by
the phrase: "the length is as large as the breadth."
((III)) The Greek word is tetragon, which is literally four-sided.
((IV)) The fact that the height is equal to the length and breadth would lend to either a cube or a
four-sided pyramid whose altitude is equal to the length of one side.
(b) In any event l = w = h which raises another question.
((I)) Is the length 12,000 furlongs?
((A)) If so, then the length, breadth, and height are each 1500 miles.
((B)) 1 mile = 8 furlongs which equates 1 furlong to 1 stadia (not quite accurate since our
mile is 426 feet more)
((II)) The Greek says: emetrosen ton polin toi kallamoi epi stadions dedeka chiliadon, he
measured the city with the reed epi 12,000 stadii.
((A)) The question lies, therefore, in the meaning of epi.
((B)) Generally means "over, " and with the word measure would carry the idea of "over the
distance of."
((III)) However, the statement says, "measured the city" not just the length.
((A)) If this be the case, then the length would be 3,000 stadia.
((B)) Of course, the breadth and height would also be 3,000 stadia.
((C)) This would be 3,000 furlongs each or approximately 375 miles(more accurately, since
the stadian is 600 Greek feet or 606 3/4 English feet, 345 miles)
((IV)) In either case the city would be too large for our present earth, particularly height-wise.
(c) The wall is 144 cubits.
((I)) This would argue for a pyramid shape, for a cube would have the city high sides right up to
the wall.
((II)) 216 feet high based on 18 inch cubit
((III)) 252.5 feet high based on 21 inch cubit
(d) This writer personally favors the pyramid shape and he will present such evidence as he thinks
points to it.
(e) Verse 17b precludes this cubit as being something other than human measurement.
(3) Richly endowed
(a) Wall made of jasper
((I)) As stated in connection with Revelation 4:3, Jasper is a yellow stone.
((II)) In verse 11 of this chapter it is symbolic of the glory of God.
((III)) The wall is of jasper to remind us that the glory of God is now surrounding the saints.
((A)) Thus forever protected
((B)) Thus excludes all except those who enter by the gate
(b) The city proper is of pure gold, but transparent like glass, thus no ordinary gold.
(c) The twelve foundations are studded with precious stones.
((I)) The first with jasper--yellow, not due to lack of courage, but filled with God's glory.
((II)) The second with sapphire--probably like our present day sky-blue stone, suggesting
heavenly character
((III)) The third with chalcedony--perhaps what is known as an agate and probably found near
Chalcedon, and is sky-blue with stripes of other colors.
((IV)) The fourth with the emerald--green naturally, speaking of rest due to God's mercy and
grace
((V)) The fifth with the sardonyx--corresponding to the onyx stone in the Old Testament
((VI)) The sixth is sardius, or sardine--corresponding to our ruby, thus red in color suggesting
sacrifice and judgment.
((VII)) The seventh with the chrysolith--probably a stone of pale green, somewhat transparent
and perhaps like our topaz (but see ninth stone)
((VIII)) The eighth with beryl--again found in Old Testament
((IX)) The ninth with topaz--which may be somewhat like amber
((X)) The tenth with chrysoprasus--might correspond to amethyst in the Old Testament, but see
the twelfth one
((XI)) The eleventh with jacinth--corresponding to the ligure in the Old Testament
((XII)) The twelfth with amethyst--a purple stone which speaks of royalty
(d) The gates are of pearl, each gate out one pearl--no oyster needed to produce these.
(e) Just to be sure there is no misunderstand, the streets are described as being of gold, transparent
as in verse 18.
(4) A literal city
(a) Many objections are raised to taking this city as literal and actual.
((I)) Such a view, it is claimed, is too materialistic, and not worthy of the spiritual views
presented by our Lord (What about Jesus' statement in John 14:1-3; must we not take it
literally?). But if God so presents such a material view, who is to say that to take it as such
is too materialistic? Rather it is that those who wish to do away with the literal that have little,
if anything, to say of the future eternity except in rather vague, nebulous terms.
((II)) Such a view, it is argued, does not fit into the picture of the Bride of Christ.
((A)) This argument is, granted, most effective.
((B)) However, the description of this city includes more than the Church, the Bride--cf.
Hebrews 12:22-24
((C)) Then, too, a moment's thought will show that both can be literally true and that the two
ideas are not incompatible; remember the throne of God and the Lamb are in this city,
therefore, the bride is part thereof.
(b) The arguments for a literal city
((I)) The first and foremost argument is literal interpretation.
   ((II)) As Peters points out, "In the usage of the east when a king entered his capitol to rule there
from, or a prince ascended the throne, it was represented under the figure of a marriage,
i. e., he was wedded, intimately and permanently united to the city, or throne, or people."
((III)) The description is literal. The gold means gold; the stones, stones; the pearls, pearls; the
exact measurements, real dimensions; or else as Newell, 348, says, "the Bible gives nothing
accurate nor reliable." The twelve stones mentioned here occur in the high priest's
four-square breastplate--cf. Exodus 28:15-21. These stones were literal; why not the ones
here in Revelation?
((IV)) The rejection of the literal here requires more than the child-like faith necessary to accept
the gospel in the first place. Yet the faith necessary to believe the book of Revelation is no
different or more sophisticated.
((V)) Abraham and the other Old Testament saints looked for a "city," not some ethereal state of
mind.--cf. Hebrews 11:9, 10, 13-16
((VI)) The literal resurrection of the body is proof as Newell (349; italics are his.) states: "If
reasonings and doubts of the reality and literalness of His body were excluded, then, when
the human mind would naturally be astonished; how much less now can questionings and
doubts be admitted as to the literalness of the marvelous city of Revelation 21, which is to
be the eternal home of our Lord's risen body, and that of His saints in glorified bodies
like unto His!"
((A)) Note: Jesus Christ is even right now in His risen body; it will be so then.
((B)) NOTE: The deniers of the bodily resurrection have not risen out of the camp of the
literalists, but rather out of the camp of the allegorizers who wish to allegorize this literal,
glorious city into a meaningless nothing. This writer repeats: Liberalism,
neo-orthodoxy, God-is-dead movement, never arose out of the camp of the
literalists; furthermore, no dispensationalist, no premillennialist, no literalist has
ever become a liberal, neo-orthodox, etc. without first DEPARTING FROM
LITERAL, DISPENSATIONAL, PREMILLENNIAL, INTERPRETATION OF
SCRIPTURE.
((VII)) If this new Jerusalem can not be taken literal, neither can anyone consistently take literal
the millennial Jerusalem of Ezekiel 40-48 and Zecheriah 14. Yet there are premillennialists
who are thus inconsistent and some of these have departed from premillerinialism
because of the inconsistency.
((VIII)) In this same book of Revelation, the former Jerusalem is literal--cf. 11:8, and so is
Babylon the Great--18:10. So is the great earthquake which destroys both--16:19; as well
as the destroying of the old earth, and the creation of the new. Consistency demands,
therefore, the literalness of this city.
((IX)) A very prevalent idea is that spirituality is contrary to and opposed to material things.
((A)) God chose a physical, material city which to dwell in the Old Testament times.
((B)) The incarnation is proof that this idea is false; for what is more material than a human
body? cf. John 1:1-3, 14; 2 John 7 and many other passages.
((C)) Rightly does Newell, 350, say that Christian Scientists--who are neither Christian or
scientific--are the only consistent and logical allegorizers.
((D)) The Bible rightly interpreted leads to a literal and wonderful abode for the redeemed
who possess glorified bodies--but bodies nevertheless.
((X)) Peters further points out that Revelation 21:22 "can only be predicted of a material city."
((XI)) A distinction is made in numerous passages (of which Hebrews 12 is just one) between
the city and its inhabitants.
(II) Its inhabitants
(A) The .eternal dwelling place of God
(1) Cf. 21:1, 2 with verse 3a--The new Jerusalem descends out of Heaven and immediately we read:
"Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men."
(2) No other habitation for God is mentioned after this point.
(3) Has the glory of God in it
(a) 21:11
(b) 21:23
(c) 22:5
(d) Has the glory of God because God Himself is there
(4) Has the throne of God--22:3
(5) Has the service (spiritual worship) of God--22:3
(6) "Here at last God, who is Love, reveals Himself to the saints of that blessed city directly. There is
no temple, no form, no distance. This, therefore, must be the place of God's rest forever!"
(Newell, 354; italics are his.)
(B) The Bride, the Lamb's wife
(1) Cf. 21:9--This is why the close identification between the Bride and the city.
(2) As Pentecost says: "When the angel would reveal the glory and blessedness of the bride that angel
reveals the dwelling place of the bride." (Probably from Things to Come)
(3) See
(a) Hebrews 12:22, 23; 13:14
(b) Revelation 3:12
(4) Probably the place to which our Lord refers--John 14:2, 3 (Note: John is the human author of
both passages.)
(5) Note also the names of the twelve apostles in the foundations
(C) The Old Testament saints
(1) This would include Tribulation saints who are Jews.
(2) Recall that Abraham was looking for a city--Hebrews 11:9.
(3) Again cf. Hebrews 12:22ff.
(D) Innumerable company of angels
(1) Nothing is in our text to surmise this.
(2) Logically follows from the fact that God is there and the angels serve Him.
(3) Again see Hebrews 12:22ff.
(E) The Lamb
(1) Follows from the fact that He is God
(2) Follows from the fact that His bride, the wife of the Lamb, the church, is there
(3) Follows from direct statements of Scripture
(a) Hebrews 12:22.ff.
(b) Revelation 21:22, 23
(c) Revelation 22:1, 3
(F) The Holy Spirit
(1) No specific passage can be cited to support the idea that the Spirit is in this city; all is by inference.
(2} First, if God the Father, and God the Son--the Lamb--dwell here in this city, no reason can be
assigned for the absence of the Holy Spirit from this city.
(3) Second, the Trinity is a tri-unity; therefore, where the Father and Son are, the Spirit will be also.
(Note: This is not a denial of the omnipresence of God.)
(4) Third, the church, the bride of the Lamb, is resident in this city; those of us who are believers as
members of His Body and thus of the church have the Holy Spirit indwelling us; and no Scripture
can be cited for the departure of the Holy Spirit from the believer when we die or are raptured. To
the contrary , from 2 Thessalonians 2:7, we deduce the fact that the Holy Spirit Who is now is
restraining evil in this present age is "taken out of the way" when believers are raptured.
(5) Notice 22:17 where the Spirit and the Bride are closely connected.
(III) Its place
(A) In relation to prophetic time
(1) Two views are prevalent among premillennialists (The amillennialists make no time distinctions here
to speak of, so that their views need not be considered).
(a) Describes the millennium (Obviously, from what has been said, this writer does not hold this
position)
(b) Describes the eternal state
(2) Arguments for the Millennium and objections
(a) This view is held by such stawalt premillennialists as Darby, Gaebelein, Grant, Ironside,
Jennings, Kelly, Pettingill, Seiss, Scott as well as others.
(b) The principle of retrospect
((I)) This principle, which does occur in the Book of Revelation, says that a writer by inspiration
will state a series of events to a point then return to restate some or all of the events with
expansion.
((II)) Kelly gives a good example of this in stating that the events recorded up through chapter
14 carries us time-wise to after the Fall of Babylon. In chapters 17, 18, the details of this
fall is given in retrospect. Then Kelly states: "Now it appears to me that this exactly answers
to the order of the events in Chapter xxi." (Quoted by Pentecost, Things to Come, 564).
((III)) Objections
((A)) "This expanded vision of the new Jerusalem does not, for its interpretation, demand a
return in thought to the conditions existing during the Millennium. The Millennium is the
theme, indeed, of the prophecies of the Old Testament, and beyond the Millennium
these prophecies rarely go." (Ottman, quoted by Pentecost, Ibid.). It is suggested that
   two passages in Isaiah look beyond the Millennium. This limitation is not found in the
   New Testament, however.
((B)) Kelly's argument is at fault because the two passages cited are not parallels.
(c) The ministry of the vial angel
((I)) Because the speaker to John is an angel connected with the vial judgments, it is thus
associated with the setting up of the Millennium; therefore, this passage concerning the new
Jerusalem is concerned with the Millennium.
((II)) The argument from the principle of retrospect is also used in this connection.
((III)) Objections
((A)) The objection to the principle of retrospect being used applies here.
((B)) Just because the speaker is one of the vial angels does not of itself associate this new
Jerusalem with any connection with the Millennium. One might note in this connection that
when the Millennium is actually introduced, no such statement of one of the vial angels is
seen.
(d) The use of dispensational names
((I)) The dispensational names in question are "the Lord God Almighty" and "the Lamb." These
names, asserts Kelly, are not associated with the obviously eternal picture of 21:1-8.
((II)) Objections
((A)) "The Lamb" is not necessarily dispensational in meaning. It is used in various
dispensations and is not peculiar to the Millennium.
((1)) Under law by John the Baptist--cf. John 1:29
((2)) Under grace
((a)) Acts 8:32
((b)) 1 Peter 1:19
((3)) During the tribulation period--cf. Revelation 7:14
((4)) The term is not in the Millennium passage.
((B)) The name "Almighty" cannot be confined to the Millennium period.
((1)) It is used many times in the Old Testament in non-millennial passages, over 30 times
in the Book of Job alone.
((2)) "This name will take on new significance in that it has been demonstrated through the
destruction of the last enemy that God is the Almighty."--Pentecost.
(e) The healing of the nations
((I)) The necessity of healing of nations in Revelation 22:2, so this argument says, requires that
this passage be millennial.
((II)) Kelly says that nations will not exist as such in eternity; neither will they need healing.
((III)) Scott, 440, notes the parallelism between this passage and Ezekiel 47:12
((IV)) Objections
((A)) Admittedly, they seem to have the best of the argument here.
((B)) Ottman states that the two visions (one in Revelation and the one in Ezekiel) "are not
the same. The range of Ezekiel's prophecy does not extend beyond the Millennium,
whereas John's is of Eternity." (quoted by Pentecost, op. cit., 566).
((C)) Sometimes the prophets use healing in a spiritual sense rather than physical. Though
this idea would lessen the need to a reference to the Millennium, this still remains their best
argument.
((D)) Pentecost notes "that a tree of life was in the garden to sustain life for Adam in his
unfallen state. It did not there have reference to sin or disease and need not here." This
answer subdues the force of the argument from healing to some extent.
((E)) The full force of the argument is not so much dependent upon the matter of healing,
but rather on the matter of the existence of nations.
((1)) Kelly uses this mention of nations to insist it must refer to the Millennium, for he
affirms that no nations exist in the eternal state.
((2)) Who says there are no nations in the eternal state? Kelly, but certainly not the
Scripture.
((3)) Israel, redeemed, does not cease to exist as a nation, Isaiah 66:22--coupled with the
context--clearly associates the nation Israel with the new heavens and new earth.
((4)) Ottman well states, "That none of the other Millennial nations should in like manner
survive the dissolution of the earth is almost inconceivable." (Quoted by Pentecost,
op. cit., 567)
((F)) The argument seems to hinge on the preposition eis in Revelation 21:26.
((1)) Kelly insists it means "unto"; thus sustaining the idea that the nations will approach
unto the city, but not into it.
((2)) Kelly overlooks the.fact that Revelation 21:2 speaks of the new Jerusalem, the holy
city, coming down from God out of heaven--which verse he would acknowledge is
eternity--and that Revelation 21:10 speaks of the great city, the holy Jerusalem,
descending out of heaven from God. There is no difference in the Greek between
"coming down" and "descending"; both are katabaimousan.
   ((3)) Kelly also overlooks the fact that in Revelation 21:27 only those in the Lamb's book
of life enters this city. Thus, he fails to see whole groups of people redeemed during
the Millennium.
((4)) The Greek word eis can mean "into" or "unto"; and this writer fails to see that any
real difference in interpretation exists between the two renderings.
(f) The ministry of angels
((I)) Scott (429?) argues that no ministry of angels occurs in eternity, hence this scene is
millennial.
((II)) Objections
((A)) Largely an argument from silence, for the passage which all admit is the eternal
state--Revelation 21:1-8--is brief to say the least, and possibly too short to include their
eternal ministry.
((B)) Hebrews 12:22 certainly pictures that angels are in the new Jerusalem, and this writer
for one can see no distinction between the heavenly Jerusalem there and the one
mentioned in Revelation 21:2 and the one mentioned in Revelation 21:10.
((C)) It is not reasonable that angels created before mankind and who left not their first estate
but continually serve God day and night should not have some service to render in
eternity.
(3) Arguments for the eternal state
(a) The use of the adjective "new"
((I)) Occurs in Revelation 21:1, 2
((ll)) Three new things
((A)) Heaven
((B)) Earth
((C)) Jerusalem
((III)) The "new Jerusalem of verse 2 and the holy Jerusalem of verse 10 must be the same
based on the descent of both from God out of heaven, and since it is related to the new
heaven and new earth, which represents eternity in the first instance," then, "it must represent
eternal positions in the second also." (Pentecost, op. cit., 568).
(b) The position of the city:
((I)) Mentioned in Revelation 21:2, 10
((II)) Generally, interpreters of both views picture the city as pictured in Revelation 21:10 as
suspended over the earth. Then this idea is used to argue that it could only be an eternal
picture, not a millennial one, for, it is insisted that Jesus Christ will reign during the Millennium from an earthly Jerusalem, not a heavenly one. (This fact seems evident from Revelation
20:9)
   ((III)) Pentecost gives this reply: "It may be argued that Christ will return to the earth at the
second advent and He will reign on David's throne. The center of that authority is
recognized to be earthly Jerusalem. That does not necessitate the presence of Christ on that
throne constantly. Christ may still reign on David's throne over David's kingdom, but make
the heavenly Jerusalem His place of residence with His Bride."
((IV)) Another reply may be that both sets of interpreters are wrong in saying that this heavenly
Jerusalem is suspended over the earth. This writer is convinced, at least, that it comes to rest
on the new earth.
(c) The city has eternal characteristics.
((I)) A number of its descriptions are eternal in character.
((A)) The glory which the Millennium would have of God is in it, which would strike down
any unsaved
((B)) Had no temple in it whereas Ezekiel 40-48 indicates a temple during the Millennium.
((C)) God's throne is there.
((D)) No night in the heavenly city; the Millennium will have night and day (cf. Isaiah 30:26;
60:19, 20)
((E)) No more curse (22:3) which removes the effects of the fall
((F)) All are saved (21:27); therefore, must be eternity, for Millennium will have unsaved
born during it.
((G)) No death in it, but people will die during the millennium (Isaiah 65:20)
((II)) However, in reply, Jesus taught that He would take the "throne of His glory" at His second
coming (Matthew 25:31) and certainly will occupy it during the Millennium.
((III)) The argument that there is no temple is not conclusive for Ezekiel's temple is in the earthly
Jerusalem; the heavenly Jerusalem need none, for the Lamb is there.
((IV)) Further, it is argued that no night is there is not conclusive, for the heavenly Jerusalem has
the Lamb as the light, whereas the earthly Jerusalem would have night.
((A)) This writer objects on the grounds that such argumentation leads to confusing the
earthly Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem. Such confusing is what have led many to
throw up their hands and allegorize the whole book.
((B)) This writer's second objection is that 21:24 says that the nations walk in its light;
therefore, this must be an eternal picture.
(d) Argument from the length of reign
   ((I)) Revelation 22:5 states an eternal reign--forever and ever-- for the saints whereas
Revelation 20:4 states that the saints reign for 1,000 years.
((II)) Since 1,000 years is not forever, the reign in Revelation 22 must be eternal.
((III)) In reply these who argue for the Millennium here point to the fact that Christ's kingdom
and reign are forever, not just 1,000 years.
(e) Argument from existence of nations in eternity
((I)) Revelation 21:3 states that God will be their God, and they in turn will be His peoples--
which is the correct rendering of the Greek. From this fact, nations--peoples being another
way of saying nations--will be in eternity.
   ((II)) As previously noted, at least one nation will be upon the new earth, namely, Israel.--cf.
Isaiah 66:22
((III)) The other side replies that Isaiah 66 "must be taken in a very qualified sense indeed. . . . it
is said of the Lord, 'He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom
there shall be no end.' This is an Old Testament hope, though said in the New; and it means
of course that He shall reign over the house of Jacob as long as it exists as such upon the
earth. When the earth disappears and Israel is no longer seen as a nation, they will be
blessed, no doubt, in another and better way; but there will be no reign of Christ over them
as an earthly people here below; so that this kingdom, while it has no end as the earth
subsists, must necessarily be limited by the earth's continuance." (Kelly, as quoted by
Pentecost, op. cit., 571-2.)
((A)) Objection #1--Newell (location unknown) well says--although in a slightly different
connection--"As the little girl asked her mother concerning the preacher who said that our
   Lord's words in John 14, 'I will come again,' did not mean that He would come back in
person: 'Mama, if Jesus did not mean what He said, why didn't He say what He
meant?'" The application to Kelly's statement should be evident: If the Word of God
says that Jesus "shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there
   shall be no end," yet does not mean forever, and no end, why didn't God say what He
meant? Of course, God meant what He said, and Kelly is completely wrong is saying
that Isaiah 66 "must be taken in a very qualified sense."
((B)) Objection #2 to Kelly's statement. is that God creates a new earth as well as a new
heaven. Why have a new earth if Israel, or some other nations are not going to enjoy it?
Is it any wonder so many scoff at the Lord's Word when we who name the name of
Jesus are so unwilling to take God at His Word? Oh, this writer knows that we are living
in a so-called enlighten, sophisticated, erudite age where everything, particularly if it is at
all related to the Bible, is questioned, denied, twisted, and allegorized into nothingness.
Little wonder that our present generation has produced a "God-is-dead" movement.
How long will we who say we believe God's Word wait before we really start believing
it?
(e) Argument from Matthew 25:34, 46
((I)) Matthew 25:34 shows that Gentiles who are saved will inherit a kingdom that has been
"prepared for them from the foundation of the world." (Pentecost, op. cit., 572)
((II)) These Gentiles inherit life according to Matthew 25:46, which must be eternal life;
therefore, there will be after the millennium individuals who are not part of the church, the
Bride, but saved and possessors of eternal life, and yet distinct from Israel. Where are these
going to be, unless they are the peoples, the nations, living on earth throughout eternity?
(4) A possible solution
(a) Although this writer currently hold the eternal state point of view, another possibility exists,
namely, both the millennial and eternal states are in view.
   ((I)) As is often the case--though not always, when there seems to be two opposing ideas, the
truth may, perhaps, lay between them.
((II)) This view would take the best of both.
((III)) It would suggest that Revelation 21:9-22:7 "describes the eternal habitation of the
resurrected saints during the millennium." (Pentecost, op. cit., 572) "When the occupants of
the city are described it must be seen that they are in their eternal state, possessing their
eternal inheritance in eternal relationship with God who has tabernacled among them. There
will be no change in their position or relation whatsoever. When the occupants of the earth
are described they are seen in the millennial age. They have an established relationship to the
heavenly city which is above them. in whose light they walk. Yet their position is not eternal
nor unchangeable, but rather millennial."--Pentecost, op. cit., 580 "At the expiration of the
millennial age, during the renovation of earth, the dwelling place is removed during the
conflagration to find its place after the recreation, as the connecting link between the new
heavens and the new earth."-- Pentecost, loc. cit.
((IV)) Perhaps, this mediating view is the solution, but it is all based upon the assumption that
Revelation 21:2, 10 have the new and holy Jerusalem suspended above the earth. This
assumption, this writer believes, is not necessarily warranted. The eternal state view does not
need this assumption, and those verses have nothing in their statements for such an
assumption. This writer must admit that nothing is in those statement that would prevent such
an assumption, but why assume something that is unnecessary? (But then consider also
Revelation 22:3)
(B) In relation to the new earth
   (1) Two views are available; these two determine one's ultimate interpretation of the new Jerusalem,
particular as in Revelation 21:10ff.
(a) The new, holy Jerusalem is suspended above the earth.
((I)) The chief argument is that Revelation 21:2, 10 picture it is "coming down" but nowhere
does it say that it rests on the new earth; Q. E. D., it must be suspended above the new
earth; and so have commentators assumed.
((II)) Objection: that it does not say it touches the new earth is an argument from silent that cuts
both ways.
((III)) Objection: Revelation 22:3 says there shall be no more curse which argues for the
eternal state, and which in turn does not need the assumption of a suspended holy city.
(b) The new, holy Jerusalem is resting upon the earth.
((I)) This view is based on the idea that if the kings of earth (21:24) bring their glory into the
   city, then the city must rest upon the earth for them to enter. Verse 10 as well as verse 2
allow for it, and there is as much valid reason for assuming it rest upon the earth as to assume
that it is suspended above it.
((II)) The chief objection is the same one for the other view, .namely, that it does not say that it
rests upon the earth. This argument from silence, as noted before, cuts both ways.
((III)) Another objection that might be raised is that most commentators hold.that it is suspended
above the earth. Of course, just because most commentators hold a position does not make
it right. Most of them ignore it seems to this writer, verse 24.

Click on the words to which you wish to return: Home Page, Book Page, or E. The Eternal State--21:1--22:21, Part 3