C. The Holy City (21:9—21)
C. THE HOLY CITY (21:9—21)
The most considerable section of this chapter is given over to a description of the holy city. In a series of vivid metaphors John sets out important truths about the life to come.
9. One of the ... angels who had the ... bowls full of the seven last plagues comes on the scene again, but we are not told which one. Come (deuro) is a command, not an invitation. John is summoned. The angel says, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb. The latter expression puts some emphasis on the final state. The marriage is now not something to be looked forward to but something that has arrived. The Lamb is very prominent in the new Jerusalem; he is mentioned in these last two chapters seven times.
We should not overlook the fact that the angel who shows John the bride is introduced in exactly the same terms as the one who showed him the judgment of the whore (17:1). This can scarcely be accidental. John may even mean that it was the same one. He may want us to see, as Barclay suggests, that God’s servants do not select their tasks; God may send them for judgment or for blessing or for both in turn. But they must go where they are sent; they must speak what God tells them to speak. Or John may have in mind that there is but one divine purpose: judgment and grace go together. It issues in the appearance of the bride of the Lamb, but this necessarily involves the judgment of the whore. It is impossible to dwell both in Babylon and the new Jerusalem. To choose Jerusalem is to renounce Babylon. Judgment on sin is the necessary prelude to the establishment of the city of God. Christina Rossetti sees it in this way: ‘Hourly, momentarily, there come to me mercies or chastisements. The chastisements themselves are veiled mercies, as it were veiled angels. The mercies I name chastisements are no less merciful than those which at once I recognize as mercies.’ Mercy and judgment are inextricably interwoven.
10. John was taken in the Spirit (see note on 1:10) to a mountain. This means that he saw a vision, not that he was transported bodily. It disclosed to him Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven. The description is very like that in verse 2 (where see note) though ‘new’ is omitted. Some find a difficulty in this second mention of the descent of the Holy City. But we need not think of two originally different narratives put together by a bungling editor, so obtuse that he forgot what he had included eight verses before. Nor need we think that the city was taken up to heaven in the meantime and is now brought down again. Rather as Caird puts it, ’To the crack of doom Jerusalem can never appear other than “coming down out of heaven”, for it owes its existence to the condescension of God and not to the building of men.’ We should perhaps notice that whereas John was in a ’wilderness’ when he saw great Babylon (17:3) it was from a mountain great and high that he saw the new Jerusalem. The heavenly city is to be discerned only from an exalted standpoint, perhaps the high point of faith.
11. The city had the glory of God. This is not elaborated, but it is surely the most striking thing about the city. John proceeds to tell us that its brilliance was like that of ... precious stone, further defined as jasper and clear as crystal (an expression here only in the New Testament). This might mean ‘shining like crystal’ or ’ransparent like crystal’. Jasper as we know it is an opaque stone, which raises the question whether John means the same stone as we do. If it is crystal clear it is not our jasper, and some have thought that diamond is meant. There is often uncertainty about the identification of precious stones in antiquity (see note on 4:3). But whatever our view on the identity of this stone, it is quite clear that John thinks of the brilliance of the new Jerusalem as like very costly stone. And as this very costly stone was used earlier to convey the glory of God (4:3), its use here tells us that the city’s brilliance comes from God himself.
12. The city was surrounded by a great, high wall, which means that it was secure and inviolable. It cannot be meant as a defence, for all enemies have been destroyed and in any case its gates are never shut (V.25). The walls are pierced by twelve gates, over each of which is set an angel. This will be a mark of dignity, for an angelic gatekeeper is most unusual. There may also be the thought that the angel controls who goes in and out. Entrance to God’s city is not open to anyone who chooses, but only to those to whom God gives the right. The gates bear the names of the twelve tribes of Israel (cf. Ezk. 48:31-34). This heavenly city is the true fulfilment of Israel’s high calling. The ancient people of God is not forgotten in the final disposition of things.
13. The location of the twelve gates is specified. It is natural that three face each point of the compass but the order in which they are mentioned, east ... north ... south and .. , west, is a curious one. It is found in Ezekiel 42:16-19. Some think it was derived from that passage and even that the names on the gates are those in the prophet (Ezk. 48:31—34). Smith does this, and goes on to comment on the marvel that Dan, omitted from the list in chapter 7, is now on what he calls ‘the “glory side” of the city’. But this is supposition. John does not mention Dan, and the twelve tribes in mind may well be those in chapter 7.
14. Under the wall were twelve foundations, bearing the names of Christ’s apostles. The combination of the twelve tribes in verse 12 and the twelve apostles is a way of saying that Israel of old and the Christian church are united in God’s final scheme of things. This truth has been brought out in various places in the concluding scenes. The Lamb (rather than the personal name) points to the character in which our salvation is accomplished.
15.
The angel ... had a measuring rod of gold. The purpose (hina) was to measure the city, its gates, and its wall. Measuring evidently signifies security and protection (in 11:2 the outer court which was given over to the Gentiles was not measured).
16.
The city was ... square. When the angel measured it up, the length, breadth and height were all 12,000 stadia. The city is thus more than square: it is a perfect cube. This shape is that of the Holy of Holies. It is the place where God dwells. There will be the added thought that God’s people dwell there too in perfect fellowship with God. The number 12,000 is the number of Israel, twelve, multiplied by the cube of ten, the number of completion. It thus stands for the complete total of God’s people. Twelve thousand stadia is approximately 1,500 miles, the distance between London and Athens, between New York and Houston, between Delhi and Rangoon, between Adelaide and Darwin. A city of this size is too large for the imagination to take in. John is certainly conveying the idea of splendour. And, more importantly, that of room for all.
17. The angel continued with his measurements and found that the wall was 144 cubits, about 72 yards. If we are trying to form a mental picture of all this we are in some trouble. The measurement will surely refer either to the wall’s height or its thickness. If the former, it is curiously low for a city 12,000 stadia high, and we have been informed that the wall was ‘great and high’ (V.12). If the latter, it needs no builder to discern that a wall 1,500 miles high needs a broader base than 72 yards. Clearly the number is symbolical. Swete takes the 144 cubits to be the wall height and sees it as underlining the point that ’the walls of the City are not for defence—for there is no enemy at large any more—but serve for delimitation’. This is probably the way to take it, with perhaps the added thought that 144 is the square of twelve, the number of Israel. John adds that the measure is man’s measurement ’that is of the angel’. This appears to mean that the angel used ordinary human measures, not some extraordinary measure of his own.
18. The word endomesis is unusual, but apparently means that of which the wall is built. In that case it did not simply have jasper built into it but was built of jasper. This stone has already been used as something of a symbol of God (4:3), so we may say that the wall is from God and in its way reveals God. There is also the thought that it is God who is the city’s defence. He is a wall round his people. John adds the information that the city was of pure gold ‘like clear glass’. This is puzzling as gold is opaque. John may be referring to its shining appearance: the gold shone like glass. More probably he is taking clear glass as immensely costly. Among the ancients glass was usually very dark (NIV’S pure as glass is misleading; glass was normally very impure); crystal-clear glass was extraordinarily valuable, something fit for a king’s court (see note on 4:6). John is speaking of the heavenly city as built of the most costly materials.
19—20
The foundations of the city walls were decorated (the perfect indicates something permanent) with every kind of precious stone (cf. Is. 54:11-12).99 The stones appear to be the same as those in the high priest’s breastplate (Ex. 28:17-20). It is true that the names are not always the same, but this may well be, as some scholars suppose, because John is making his own translation from the Hebrew, and there may have been different ideas as to the Greek equivalents of the names in the original.
Charles argued that the stones correlate with the signs of the zodiac, but that John has them in the order exactly opposite to that of the sun as its passes through the constellations. If this be accepted, John is repudiating heathen concepts and using the order of the jewels to convey the thought that God reverses human judgments. In the first edition of this commentary I inclined to this view, but since then T. Francis Glasson seems to have shown that the authority on which Charles depended for the correlation is unreliable and that the view is untenable.100 We should probably say no more than that the stones point to the high priest’s breastplate.
John’s first stone is jasper, for which see note on 4:3. The second is sapphire, which may be the blue, transparent stone that we denote by the term. Most authorities, however, maintain that the ancients referred to the lapis lazuli by this name. The third is chalcedony. With us this is a variety of quartz, but it is quite uncertain what the ancients meant by it. It may have been our chalcedony, but we can say no more. Emerald (cf. 4:3) was apparently a green stone. Next comes sardonyx, which is usually thought to denote a banded stone, perhaps a variety of agate. The sixth is carnelian (cf. 4:3). The seventh is chrysolite (lit. ’gold-stone’), which Hillyer thinks may be ’chrysolite, gold quartz, yellow quartz’. The eighth stone is beryl, ’precious stone of sea-green colour’ (BAGD). Next comes topaz, which may have been yellow rock crystal (as Myres thinks, EB, pp.4803f.), or topaz (Hillyer). The tenth stone is chrysoprase, ‘an apple-green, fine-grained hornstone (variety of quartz), colored by nickel oxide and highly translucent’ (BAGD). The eleventh is jacinth or hyacinth (Gk. hyakinthos). Some take this to be a blue stone like the sapphire (BAGD, IBD), others hold that it is red (EB). Cf. 9:17, where see note. Finally we have amethyst, a purple, transparent quartz crystal.
21. The gates of the city are quite magnificent, each one being a single pearl (cf. Is. 54:12). There is a rabbinic statement: ‘The Holy One, blessed be He, will in time to come bring precious stones and pearls which are thirty (cubits) by thirty and will cut out from them (openings) ten (cubits) by twenty, and will set them up in the gates of Jerusalem’ (Baba Bathra 75a). John is writing against a background that saw the heavenly city as containing huge pearls. New Jerusalem is not lacking in this respect. From the gates John moves to the street, which was pure gold, like transparent glass (cf. v.18 and the note there). It is possible that we should take like transparent glass not with gold but with pure (it follows it immediately in the Greek). In transparent glass any flaw would show up. If it were pure it would be really pure. So with the gold of this city.