I personally hope the seas will exist after this life. I’ve had a love for the ocean since infancy and the way it makes one feel free and closer to God.

Maybe it’s my own inability to understand, but it doesn’t make sense for God to create such a beautiful gift that is so full of life only to completely take it away in the next one.

In day 3, God gathered the waters on the earth and called them “seas” for there were many. But what is removed in Revelation is “sea”. Paul stated that there are 3 heavens. The firmament houses 2–the natural expanse we see and the expanse that the devil operates. The sea separated these from the third. Since it is God’s heart to dwell with mankind, He would not be happy about this necessary thing because evil was afoot from the beginning our this age.

This, I think, is the sea that will be removed. Note that this happens after all evil is judged (so nothing would keep God from setting up His rule here) and it precipitates the kingdom of heaven coming in reality and power. From the beginning, for some reason, God could not dwell fully with man. Food for thought.

For a couple proximate examples, see Rev 20:8, 13.

Even if John has the Mediterranean primarily in mind based on his experience, it doesn’t seem best to limit it to that.

That point aside, we are in agreement that most interpreters, who think the new earth will have no large bodies of water, come to their conclusion without solid textual warrant.

I’d be inclined to think that the article in “the sea” would suggest a specific sea, or the sea, par excellance, which in John’s case would definitely be the Mediterranean Sea.

For that reason, I think the translation “the sea” is better than “any sea.” -Two very different things.

Combined with the tense change, I think John is most likely talking about the old order and also that John says nothing either way about the existence of water in the New Earth.

Chad, I’m glad to hear that you ended up with the same basic conclusion that I did. Perhaps my analysis of the grammar would lend further support to your position. Kistemaker seems to agree that the new earth will have large bodies of water:

The interesting phrase and the sea was no more may signify that just as the former configurations of heaven and earth pass away so the sea no longer will exist with its present boundaries. But the term sea may also have a figurative connotation referring to afflictions God’s people endured in a sinful world (555).

Andy, thanks for the notes about Carson’s view. I wonder if he sees the absence of the sea as only symbolic or as both symbolic and literal. I can’t quite tell, but it appears that perhaps his position is the former. Keep me posted if Osborne happens to address this this semester.

Your view sounds somewhat like D. A. Carson’s. (BTW, I’m still working through all this myself. E.g., I’m taking a seminar at TEDS this fall called “Revelation and Apocalyptic Literature” with Dr. Grant Osborne.)

1. “The absence of any sea (21:1) does not establish the hydrological principles of the new heaven and new earth. The sea, as we have noted before, is symbolic for chaos, the old order, death. And so the sea is gone.” D. A. Carson, For the Love of God, vol. 1, entry for Dec. 30.

2. “The sea serves as a symbol for the entire fallen order; that is why in the new heaven and the new earth there is no more sea (21:1). John is distanced from the Almighty by these and related phenomena.”
D. A. Carson, For the Love of God, vol. 2, entry for June 2.

3. Cf. D. A. Carson’s sermon on Revelation 21-22.

Good points. I actually just finished teaching through Revelation. My conclusion is that sea is a symbol for evil and chaos and; thus, its removal is a symbol of death and evil absent from the new heavens and new earth. However, the sea was part of God’s good creation back in Genesis. If we maintain that the new heavens and new earth is new in the sense of renewal and restoration (a amillennial position, which I am), and not total destruction and starting over (like dispensationalists) then why would “seas” be literally taken away, but they would be renewed like the rest of creation (cf., Rom 8:22). I am firm that sea represents evil and chaos, but I am also open to the face that seas will still exists in a renewed creation. In other words, John could simply be speaking of seas symbolically (rooted in OT), while knowing that a renewed creation will literally have seas. Something else that I discussed with this passage was how seas are also symbolic of God’s people separated from each other physically. Currently God’s people are separated from each other because of large bodies of water. I don’t think this point is the primary idea with the removal of seas, but it lends to the evil and chaos idea where seas are seen as something bad toward God’s people.

Chad