Height of the New Jerusalem.
"And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth; and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the heighth of it are equal." Rev. 21:16. It has been inferred from the above text that the New Jerusalem city is to be as high as it is long, and that its length will be twelve thousand furlongs, or fifteen hundred miles. It seems to us entirely unnecessary to place such a construction upon the language. The word equal does not always mean the same as to dimensions or position; it is frequently used in the sense of proportion. If we were to say that the length and the breadth and the height of the city were in proportion we should not violate the language. This view is taken of the text by Jas. Du Pui, A. M., in his "Exposition of the Apocalypse." The following from Thomas Wicks, author of Lectures on the Apocalypse, presents the same idea: "The language, however, will bear another meaning, which is far more natural. It is not that the length and breadth and height were severally equal to each other, but equal with themselves; that is, the length was everywhere the same, and the breadth everywhere the same, and the height the same. It was perfect and symmetrical in all its proportions. This is confirmed by the fact distinctly stated, that the wall was one hundred and forty-four cubits high, or two hundred and sixteen feet, a proper height for a wall; while it is said that the 'length is as large as the breadth.'" The Greek word Isos, which is translated equal, will, according to Pickering, bear the meaning of proportion. Greenfield, in defining another form of this word (Isotes), gives to it the sense of "equal proportion," and refers to 2 Corinthians, 8:13, 14, as an example where this definition is quite admissible. Granville Penn gives quite another turn to the text and claims the following as the true rendering: "And he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth of it are equal. And he measured the height of the wall thereof, a hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of man, that is the angel." Prof. C. F. Hudson, an eminent scholar, claims that the above is "no rash conjecture," but quite probable. It would appear, therefore, that the height of the city was proportionate to its length and breadth, and not that it was as high as it was long. The text certainly admits of a more rational interpretation, and the one suggested above frees it from all ambiguity, and shows perfect harmony in the general description.—Millenarian.