Well it doesn’t that I see as of right now, but the Hebrews did believe that the other nations were godless, generally speaking.
Also, gathering from this:
These are people who despise Israel, however yes, this does take note of a snapshot of part of the process of their redemption. But I still think it’s difficult to say that this is simply a gathering of now-believers to the Jews, though I can’t quite explicitly say why at this point. I think Jason would be best for that.
But I also have to take note of this:
Does this not imply that they may not do so? And what believer would, or could, resist such an act of love? Clearly these are people who must be coerced at some points. Thus not fully redeemed.
However, you bring up a pretty good argument, I have to say. It’s difficult to prove this particular argument, as far as I’m concerned. As I said to you over PM, your posts seem to be increasing in thoughtfulness. I fully appreciate that.
(If you want me to edit that personal comment out, feel free to let me know. )
Isaiah 60:12
the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.
Revelation 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Isaiah 60:14 is parallel to Revelation 21:10
Isaiah 60:14
they shall call thee; The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel.
Revelation 21:10
And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem,
Why would it be difficult to prove? Does it not say in Rev 21:24 the nations which are saved? It does not say the nations which will be saved or gonna be saved…these nations are already saved. The nations of the saved walk in the light of the city. The only already saved kings of the nations that I know would be those that finish out the Millennium and will inherit the New Earth as well, and will continue to carry out God’s original plan for His creation? They come to the New Jerusalem as and when needed and required. No?
That actually depends on which version you read. The KJV and other versons which translate from the Textus Receptus say the above, however Westcot-Hort based translations read: “the nations will walk by it’s light”.
But either way, it’s really not a problem if we believe that all the nations will be saved. Aaron reads it to mean: ‘the nations of those who accepted the offer of salvation before their lives on the current earth ended.’ But I have no problem reading it as: “The nations (which have now been saved) walk by it’s light.”
This makes me think of Isaiah’s prophesy: The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined.
In any case, even in the Textus Receptus it says in vs 26: “And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.” If these had been saved previously, they would be already in the city, as the city itself is the Church herself–the Bride of Christ.
But I believe it does presnt a problem. I’m not going to argue manuscripts( I believe the TR to be accurate). You want me to believe that the Kings and nations in Rev 19:19-21 are the kings and nations in Rev 21:24. Where in between Rev19 and Rev 21:24 does it record the kings and nations in 19 getting saved? Because Rev 21:24 states specifically the kings are already saved,not going to be saved.
Sonia, if you understand the Millennial reign… it comes before the final judgment (Rev 20) into eternal glory in The New Jerusalem and New earth. So, these saved kings and nations in these nations go through the final judgment and would bring their glory they shared in the Millennial reign into the New Jerasulem and New earth, No?
Actually, that phrase (“of the saved”) is so completely spurious, that whatever late text it’s found in had to completely rewrite the grammar of the sentence in order to include it. It doesn’t seem to be found in any RevJohn text (Greek or otherwise) earlier than the 15th century. I have no idea where the Textus Receptus got it from.
(The so-called TR is notorious for basing its critical text on a few relatively late documents; the edition was rushed to print in order to establish market position, which is also where its name came from: the publishers marketed it as the “Received Text”, which was bluntly speaking a lie. The TR was the underlying basis for what we call the King James Version, which appears to be what you’re quoting from. The TR is still a relatively good source; I use Green’s edition myself for help in parsing out grammar. Unfortunately, the apparatus Green intended to provide wasn’t included in my edition, so I don’t know his rationale for continuing to include that extremely low-attested and late variant.)
This is kind of beside the point, though, since no one (myself included) would deny that only those who are saved may enter the New Jerusalem. I pointed that out myself, in some detail, with direct reference to other (far more textually settled) RevJohn verses! But accuracy requires that I alert you that the phrase you’re hanging on doesn’t appear to exist in the Greek (or in other linguistic sources) until very late. Someone so concerned about “adding things” to RevJohn ought to be concerned about that!
But anyway, everyone actually agrees that the “kings of the earth” can only bring the nations into the NJ if the kings, and the nations, are saved. The question is of timing and sequence, and of identity.
Apparently, you go with the theory that the author has decided to use a phrase previously and repeatedly reserved for the worst enemies of God, to now refer to completely different people who have no relation to those previous people at all. This would not be a theory that helps illustrate the thematic unity of RevJohn as a work, however!
In a word, no. Loyalists of the Millennium Reign wouldn’t be regarded as the “nations”, having been already grafted back into the promises of Israel. They would be living in the NJ already and going out to evangelize those who are still loving and holding onto their sins–just like Rev 22 shows. The imagery parallels with Isaiah 60 fit the notion of these kings (and their nations) being evangelized and converted by the light of the New Jerusalem, which in RevJohn descends after the NM sequence.
In order for your interpretation to work, you’ll have to claim that RevJohn 21 and 22 occur during the Millennium Reign before the lake of fire judgment. This is going to be difficult, though, since they contain language indicating those still outside the NJ are suffering the lake of fire judgment. Moreover, it would conflict with the gates never being closed: a concept you have been avoiding, despite your own article’s source having brought it up and emphasized its relationship to hopeful evangelism.
When I was growing up, the typical interpretation of the kings of the earth entering the NJ was simply that of spatial movement; an interpretation which does have some OT validity! However, later I noticed that the focus in RevJohn is on the distinction between those inside and those outside the city in an ethical sense–which also has much relation to OT prophetic language. There are two classes of people outside the NJ at the end of RevJohn: those who go into it, and those who come out of it. Those who come out (including the Son, as the river of life and the light of the city, and the Holy Spirit) are doing so in order to evangelize those still outside to come into it. The directional movement of the kings of the earth and the nation, show their relationship to this process: they are answering the call.
Again, this is paralleled by the imagery in Isaiah 60 (and elsewhere, including elsewhere in Isaiah). Those who were enemies of God and of the people of God, are on that day reconciling with those they have been enemies against.
Evangelism is still going on in RevJohn, after the lake of fire judgment; and it is shown being both permanently ongoing (the gates will never close) and more than only hopefully successful (the kings of the earth are bringing the nations into the NJ where those who have not repented of their sins, and washed their robes and slaked their thirst in the river of life, cannot enter.)
Jason said: “This is going to be difficult, though, since they contain language indicating those still outside the NJ are suffering the lake of fire judgment.”
What language is this? I apologize for not remembering when you had previously brought this up!
Yes, I covered this in detail in that commentary I wrote. But I don’t mind doing so again, in more detail, from another direction (as it were).
At 21:3, John hears God on the throne of the New Jerusalem (which has descended out of heaven from God, after the old heaven and earth have passed away and been made new) declaring that the tabernacle of God is among men and that (among other things) He shall be wiping away every tear and there shall be no longer any mourning, crying or pain, and that He is making all things new (i.e. as the old heaven and earth have passed away and been made new). These are words which are faithful and true, and (from the standpoint of where John is in the vision) “They are done”. (“It is done” is not the correct translation of the Greek there.)
So a new situation has come about, with the promise that every tear shall be wiped away and that there shall no longer be any mourning or crying and that all things shall be made new. And those who thirst and who overcome shall drink freely of the river of life without cost, and they shall be His people and He shall be their God. (vv.4-7)
This already implies that even though the new heaven and earth have begun, there are still those who need to have tears wiped away, who need to become alive, because for them the first things have not yet passed away. There are still those who have not yet overcome and who are still thirsting in a way that can only be satisfied by the river of life.
Not surprisingly, either God or John (in his commentary on what’s happening) goes on to say, v.8, “Now (or but), as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted–as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars–their lot (or part, or portion) shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.”
Even though the conjunction there is {de}, which is a weak Greek conjunction, “but” is still a good translation, because there is an obvious distinction of some kind being drawn between these and those who overcome. They do however fit the topical implications of the preceding verses: who are the people who still need tears wiped away, still need to live and not die (though bodily resurrected in some sense already), still who have not overcome, still are thirsting for what only the river of life can give them? There they are!–whereas, those who are loyal to Christ have such things already, especially by the time of the new heaven and new earth.
After one of the seven angels of the seven bowls carries John to see and measure the splendor of the New Jerusalem (21:9-21), the culmination of this splendor is that the city has no need for sun or moon (or even for a temple) because the glory of God lights it up and Christ the Lamb is its lamp. (v.22-23) The nations walk by its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory (the glory and the honor of the nations, v.26) into it.
Notice, by the way, that they are bringing their glory into the light of Christ. In GosJohn, this is an image of repentance: they are coming to the light–which goes out first to them to enlighten them. This synchs up perfectly well with the contexts of Isaiah 60, too: the nations in the greatest of darkness come out of the darkness and into the light in the great and awesome Day of the Lord to come. This is only because the light first goes to them; in effect the light goes out to lead them to the source of the light.
John goes on to reveal that the gates of the city shall never be closed in the day, and that (thanks to Christ) there shall never be a night. (v.26) In Isaiah, as in other OT prophets, this is evangelical imagery: first and foremost the evangel of Christ Himself, then secondarily the evangel of the servants of Christ (i.e. the true Israel, who are typologically distinct from “the nations”.)
The fact that, in Jewish symbology, the “nations” are those who are not (yet) faithful to God, is most likely why John goes on to remind that only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life can enter–those who continue to sin cannot. (v.27) But this fits entirely well with the evangelical call so far in Chapter 21; and it will again in Chapter 22 (although John doesn’t use the metaphor of the Book of Life again. He uses other imagery instead.) This also synchs up with statements in GosJohn about those who refuse to come to the light because they love the darkness rather than the light. (Or as RevJohn puts it 22:15, they love and practice their sinning.)
I will add that since John uses the phrase “kings of the earth” which, previously in his revelation, he has exclusively reserved for the worst human rebels against God during the final tribulation, he would be even more well-advised to clarify that these (or those!) “kings of the earth” are not entering as impenitent rebels. This sure doesn’t make the theory any easier, though, that John has decided to use that phrase for other penitent kings now! (He doesn’t for example, distinguish these kings of the earth from the other kings of the earth in an absolute since, such as by saying, “But those other kings of the earth slain by Christ shall never be entering into the never closed gates of Jerusalem”. Which is probably just as well, since that would make no thematic sense anyway. )
This is a good time to mention again that the Greek at the end of verse 27 is not usually translated correctly. It’s an explicitly conditional phrase in Greek, and grammatically it refers back to those who are unclean etc. A much more accurate translation into English would be, “no one who practices abomination and lying shall ever come into it–not unless their names are written into the Lamb’s Book of Life.”
I wrote about this extensively in my commentary notes, and it’s something that anyone trying to be accurate to the text of RevJohn should deal with and account for. In the Greek original of the text, RevJohn itself testifies that those outside the NJ may enter if God writes their names into the Lamb’s Book of Life. There has been a seriously misleading mistranslation in most English versions. (Which is why Aaron37, for example, wasn’t aware that RevJohn itself testifies that those outside the city can still have their names written into the BoL. He has no excuse now not to be aware of this, of course, but he has so far refused to try to deal with it and keeps saying the other as though no one has ever shown him differently in any detail. )
I don’t actually have to have the Greek original there be translated as a conditional contrast–I can make my RevJohn case entirely well without it (so long as English translators don’t go overboard there themselves). But it’s nice to know, too.
Anyway, while 22:10 probably involves a transition to an image of current evangelism, the language of the verses after that correspond to descriptions of the heavenly New Jerusalem in the verses before that (including 22:1-5, which themselves reiterate and expand on statements of victorious hope from back in chp 21), with the effect of showing how our evangelism now corresponds with the evangelism of the day of the Lord (and vice versa), with those of us in the city going out to exhort the ones still outside the city to drink and wash their robes in the freely given water of life and so obtain permission to enter the city and eat the leaves of the log of life which are for the healing of the nations. Which I describe in more detail in the commentary I already provided.
The Greek in this verse translated ‘saved’ in the KJV, NKJV, YNG, and WEB is sozo, meaning saved. However, I see that textual note in the NKJV which reads:
NU-Text and M-Text omit of those who are saved.
M-Text reads the glory and honor of the nations to Him.
… which is apparently why this phrase does not appear in the NLT, NIV, ESB, NASB, RSV, ASV, DBY, and HNV.
There are some very strong opinions on this matter. Here are a couple, which I have looked at in some depth but am not fully qualified to render judgment on this:
ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 21:24 Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Ed.
και περιπατησουσιν τα εθνη δια του φωτος αυτης και οι βασιλεις της γης φερουσιν την δοξαν αυτων εις αυτην
ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 21:24 Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000)
και περιπατησουσιν τα εθνη δια του φωτος αυτης και οι βασιλεις της γης φερουσιν αυτω δοξαν και τιμην των εθνων εις αυτην
ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 21:24 Greek NT: Textus Receptus (1550)
και τα εθνη των σωζομενων εν τω φωτι αυτης περιπατησουσιν και οι βασιλεις της γης φερουσιν την δοξαν και την τιμην αυτων εις αυτην
ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 21:24 Greek NT: Textus Receptus (1894)
και τα εθνη των σωζομενων εν τω φωτι αυτης περιπατησουσιν και οι βασιλεις της γης φερουσιν την δοξαν και την τιμην αυτων εις αυτην
ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 21:24 Greek NT: Westcott/Hort
και περιπατησουσιν τα εθνη δια του φωτος αυτης και οι βασιλεις της γης φερουσιν την δοξαν αυτων εις αυτην
My guess from what I’ve seen is that ‘saved’ should be in there, but it’s admittedly a guess.
I’ve been looking at this more, the language and idea here in Revelation is largely based on Isaiah 60, which represents the millennial kings of the earth as saved and national Israel redeemed and glorified into eternity. I think this is worth reading as a whole to get the overall idea and see the many corresponding references:
Isaiah 60
60:1 Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee.
60:2 For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.
60:3 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.
60:4 Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at [thy] side.
60:5 Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee.
60:6 The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah; all they from Sheba shall come: they shall bring gold and incense; and they shall shew forth the praises of the LORD.
60:7 All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee: they shall come up with acceptance on mine altar, and I will glorify the house of my glory.
60:8 Who [are] these [that] fly as a cloud, and as the doves to their windows?
60:9 Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the LORD thy God, and to the Holy One of Israel, because he hath glorified thee.
60:10 And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favour have I had mercy on thee.
60:11 Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that [men] may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and [that] their kings [may be] brought.
60:12 For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, [those] nations shall be utterly wasted.
60:13 The glory of Lebanon shall come unto thee, the fir tree, the pine tree, and the box together, to beautify the place of my sanctuary; and I will make the place of my feet glorious.
60:14 The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel.
60:15 Whereas thou hast been forsaken and hated, so that no man went through [thee], I will make thee an eternal excellency, a joy of many generations.
60:16 Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the LORD [am] thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.
60:17 For brass I will bring gold, and for iron I will bring silver, and for wood brass, and for stones iron: I will also make thy officers peace, and thine exactors righteousness.
60:18 Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy borders; but thou shalt call thy walls Salvation, and thy gates Praise.
60:19 The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the LORD shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory.
60:20 Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for the LORD shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended.
60:21 Thy people also [shall be] all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified.
60:22 A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the LORD will hasten it in his time.
Jason, Could you clarify your perspective on a few things based on your response about these Rev. 21:24-27 people (kings et. al.) who you believe stood against Christ but came to the city and were saved.
Were they written in the Book of Life or not?
Did they go in the ‘lake of fire’ or not?
Where do yo see evangelism going on after the final judgment in Rev 21 & 22?
When were they ’saved’? Before or after the ‘lake of fire’ event?
If before, why do you say they are sinners when outside the city?
If after, how did they escape the ‘lake of fire’ judgment? and where in the bible does it record this?
Do they enter the city or not? And how?
Rev 21 and 22 represent the millennial kings of the earth as saved and national Israel redeemed and glorified into eternity. The Millennial reign does happen before the final judgment in Rev 20:11-15 and the Millennial kings of the earth are saved and go through the final judgment into eternal glory in the New Jerusalem and New Earth. The kings and people of the New Earth come to the New Jerusalem as and when needed and required. No? ( the gates are not closed for this very reason)
Considering how many people don’t believe the Bible anywhere testifies to universalism, the same quip could be made to any exegetical analysis showing otherwise.
The more pertinent question is whether the contexts and principle implications line up with accurate data from the text.
Of course, that conclusion comes AFTER reading TheRev. Let’s not blame it on the Bible! Once TheRev got pasted in, UR went bye-bye and the stage was set for the Dark Age. And, oh, how dark it was.
Regardless of what religion has taught you, the book of Revelation was inspired by God and did not just get pasted in. That is absurd! Start a new topic if you want to discuss what liberal religion has taught you on that subject.
RevJohn did, of course! Also a bunch of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox and other trinitarian and non-trinitarian and Protestant bishops and theologians–quite a few of whom manage to use RevJohn just fine without necessarily being non-universalists. (And maybe God told him personally, like when praying over the Book of Mormon. )
But A37 is correct, the canonical status of RevJohn really belongs as a new topic (in the Bibliology category).
testifies to universalism] comes AFTER reading TheRev. Let’s not blame it on the Bible!
That’s rather an oversimplified comment even for you, Ran. When post-apostolic authors warn about hopeless condemnation, they don’t primarily (or even at all) hang it on RevJohn. Non-Christian Jewish authorities certainly don’t either, from the 1st century rabbis onward!–and they had the same 2/3 of the Bible Christian experts and authorities and laymen did. (Maybe moreso proportionately, depending on the extent the canon had been collected in any given locale before the ratification early in the 4th century.)
Eusebius, the historian of Constantine, doesn’t seem to have been a universalist, and he’s famous for rejecting RevJohn outright. (Mainly because he thought it didn’t fit prophetically with the triumphant rise of Constantine as a Christian Emperor, which Eusebius thought must result in a happy ending now, thus discrediting RevJohn as a true prophetic work! Alas…)
While I appreciate the links, neither of them explains their text critical grounds for including the phrase, or even clearly explains where they’re getting it from. They do admit that some important early Greek texts don’t have it, but simply charge those texts with “corruption”. Neither site even gives any reference to post-19th century critical texts, much less bothering to explain why Tischendorf or Hort and Westcott went with the reading that does not include the word-phrase “of the saved”. (Other than to charge them with setting up the government of the Antichrist or something of that sort! )
Frankly, I’m inclined to go with the rationale that doesn’t completely depend on ad homming their opposition while providing nothing more than ideological grounds for a reading. I have to repeat: those two links give exactly no grounds for preferring one reading over another except to protect their ideology while launching baseless accusations against the ideological and scholarly integrity of their opposition.
Incidentally, there are some minority variants for that verse in early Greek texts, and other early texts based on Greek sourcing, which has to do with variations of the phrase ten doxan auton (“the glory of them”), typically to make the phrase echo verse 26 later. This is why your NKJV notation mentions an “M-Text”, although it’s using some nomenclature for that text I’m unfamiliar with. Is that the 10th century Greek miniscule 1611? The 11th century miniscule 1854? The Bohairic Coptic commentary? (Coptic is Egyptian written with Greek letters, of which there are around seven varieties, Sahidic and Bohairic being the two most important. Coptic is always relatively early, although I can’t find the date estimate of this one.) The longer version used by the modern Greek Orthodox church doesn’t seem testified in Greek earlier than the 13th century (although it’s common in the Latin Vulgate textual families, going back to 4th and 5th centuries.)
The most complete modern critical editions of the NT (UBS, and Nestle Aland, which are identical except for how they present apparatus information–the N/A is more complete and intended for hard-core text critics), currently weigh their reconstruction of RevJohn on no less than seven early Greek papyri (3rd to 4th centuries, plus one papyrus that may even be 2nd century); seven Unical Greek texts ranging 4th to 5th centuries; three somewhat later Unical Greek texts (9th and 10th centuries); and eleven or twelve Greek miniscules ranging from late 9th to 13th centuries. While the number of early copies isn’t anywhere near that of most of the NT canon (RevJohn wasn’t as popular), the spread is otherwise actually pretty impressive. Obviously other RevJohn texts exist (as well as commentaries and lectionary readings), but they’re regarded as being immediately dependent copies or commentaries of these texts (some of which are related to each other, too, of course), or else too late to plausibly testify to an early reading.
So, where is the Textus Receptus getting this reading from? So far as I can tell, it’s from a late Middle Age text (or family); but I’m having trouble pinning down exactly where. I’m quite curious now to find out where!–but you need to know that the actual testimony among copies to that word-phrase is apparently even less attested than (for comparison) the famous trinitarian addition to 1 John (which goes back to a 9th century commentary on the text.)
All this is only important, though, for people who think the inclusion of that one word (“of the saved” in English) somehow excludes those saved people from having been saved after the lake of fire judgment. Which it doesn’t: I wouldn’t be offset in the least if that word-phrase was actually original to the text! But, neither am I under any rational obligation, based on an assessment of the actual data, to include it.
My only disagreement would be with the adjective I italicized in your quote, there. Isaiah 60 doesn’t distinguish those kings as having been saved prior to the rising of the day of the Lord, but rather saved by the rising of the day of the Lord: a day of the Lord tantamount to the descent of the New Jerusalem after the lake of fire judgment in RevJohn–and after the general resurrection of everyone, which in RevJohn takes place after the millennial reign of Christ, whatever that reign turns out to involve.
(I know what my own beliefs currently are about that topic, but I’m trying to leave room for other interpretations there than what I believe about the reign, since they basically wouldn’t affect my beliefs about RevJohn testifying to one or another kind of universalism. A literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth after the tribulation but before the general resurrection and the lake of fire judgment, is very important to the reckoning of some universalists, though, as universalists!)
True; but you’re still missing the correspondence you need for your theory, even so.
In RevJohn, that’s the light of Christ as the lamp of the New Jerusalem.
RevJohn reveals, back in chapter 20, that despite the millennial reign of Christ (whatever that may mean), when Satan and his loyalists are freed toward the end of it, they’ll succeed in instigating a(nother?) worldwide rebellion, and launch it against the earthly Jerusalem. God zorches them before they lay siege to the city this time. Satan and his cronies are thrown into the lake of fire, and the lake of fire judgment kicks into gear (along with the general resurrection of everyone, evil and good.)
So while this verse is generally true of any time prior to the end of RevJohn (post-LoF judgment), it also happens to be particularly true in regard to the world’s state at the end of the millennial reign.
In other words, the Gentiles (i.e. pagans) living in darkness are converting to Christ: the standard way of understanding this verse and similar other verses in Isaiah and the OT elsewhere. (Including how other NT texts make use of those references, up to and including Gospel commentary and the preaching of Jesus.)
When is this happening? By the correspondences you yourself are making, it’s happening during the phase of salvation history represented by the portions of RevJohn after the lake of fire judgment.
If anything, this verse would emphasize the scope of the conversion (i.e. ALL!!)
Note that in Jewish typology, “the sea” represents the worst spiritual rebels against God (and most often their imprisonment and punishment by God)–a motif going back at least as far as the story of Noah.
Even if that isn’t pressed typologically, though, and the sea only means “the coastlands” (a metaphor for the pagans, based on where the ancient competitors of the Hebrews for Palestine lived, namely the Syro-Phoenician traders and their Canaanite outposts along the coast of Palestine), it’s still talking about the conversion of an abundance of the enemies of God. When? By the correspondences you yourself are making, after the descent of the New Jerusalem.
Having poetically reffed the conversion of the coastline pagans by the dawning of the light of New Jerusalem, Isaiah now boxes the compass and talks about ancient Hebrew enemies landward into the desert. (He keeps coming back to this theme throughout the chapter, probably to emphasize the totality of the scope in terms his hearers could understand and accept.)
In other words, they’re coming from the east and the west (to sit down at the table of the Lord, as Christ puts it in His remonstrance to those who can’t stand the thought of the pagans converting and being saved, and who want God’s salvation to be exclusively for themselves and against those other people over there.)
Surprise!–look who’s coming to the dinner after all!
There’s the common OT theme (including in Isaiah) of God smacking down rebel Israel and then, after having completely destroyed them, having mercy on them afterward. Smiting those rebel pagans, too, is far from uncommon a theme in the OT, as you may possibly have heard somewhere. And Isaiah has as much as any prophet to say (moreso than some, in fact) about God’s wrath on rebel pagan nations being just as much a means to lead them to repentance and salvation as rebel Israel.
The gates are open continually, to receive converts into the New Jerusalem. Just like in RevJohn.
The ones still outside at the end of RevJohn are still perishing and being utterly wasted (not least by the lake of fire judgment). They’re also being evangelized, though, by the river of life and the light of the city (both of which represent Christ), and by the Holy Spirit, and by people loyal to God.
This isn’t spelled out in Isaiah 60, but it’s spelled out in RevJohn. It’s implied even in Isaiah 60, though, by the never-closed gates.
Typical conversion language again; and typically radical in its emphasis. These are people who had not previously converted before this point.
This language is also used about the pagan nations, of course, elsewhere. There’s more about their destruction in the OT than their eventual restoration, but we’re getting some of that restoration promise here in chapter 60.
No big surprises here; entirely consonant with what came before. Notice that YHWH saves Israel by saving her greatest enemies, though!
Peace and fair-togetherness. Sounds like a good plan to me for Ya-Ru-Shalom! (The City of God’s Peace.)
Obviously, only those who accept God’s Salvation can go into the walls of the New Jerusalem and so call those walls Salvation. But RevJohn has a lot to say about that, too.
Aside from the literal application, this probably refers also to citizens of the NJ turning away from worshiping created things (e.g. the sun and the moon) and worshiping their Creator instead. The Hebrews had almost as much of a problem with this as the pagans did (as God occasionally complains about elsewhere in Isaiah, among many other OT texts of course.)
Keeping in mind, Israel was mourning due to having been punished by God for being spiritual (and sometimes physical) adulterers. That’s going to be over, eventually, and they’ll be completely loyal to God in the New Jerusalem; and the nations will finish converting in that day of the Lord as well. (The very famous verses which start the beginning of Isaiah 61, shortly afterward, are about God releasing Israel from her punishment and captivity, to give another example of this principle.)
And their descendents, after the start of the Day of the Lord, shall be loyal, too.
You mean, beyond everything else I’ve already written on the topic before this comment? That might be possible, I suppose.
At the time of the lake of fire judgment, no. Unless they repented while in hades before the general resurrection. The text isn’t clear about whether they repented before the resurrection or afterward, but it doesn’t really matter for our purposes. The text is clear (especially in the Greek–the text of which is stable, for this portion, even in the TR ) that they cannot be entering the city until they’ve been written in, and the text talks about evangelism to bring people like themselves (or who they used to be) inside. Penitent horns of the beast would make a huge evangelical appeal for former followers of theirs!–and (in RevJohn terms) some of those will be entering into the kingdom of heaven before other rebels who are still outside. (A theme, and a warning, repeatedly warned about by Jesus through the Synoptic Gospels, too, although He uses different examples of archetypical sinners that His hearers, especially the Pharisees, wouldn’t be expecting to get in, and certainly not before themselves!)
If they hadn’t repented by that point, they did. They’re still going to be baptized by Christ in the Spirit and in fire, just like all of us, but any insistence on continuing to rebel will make a big difference in how they experience it. (Even many non-universalistic Christian theologians agree with this!)
Already discussed in much detail, in that thread I created last week to discuss such topics (which you said you had read.) Also discussed in some detail in other threads. You yourself quoted part of that analysis at the start of the thread you’re reading right now!–although you only focused on questioning who those “kings of the earth” are. You didn’t bother to really look at or discuss the other portions you yourself quoted.
You’re welcome to cross-examine what I’ve already written on the topic, but I see no need to repeat the whole analysis again here; especially since this comment is already rather long. (Much of what I have already written will be included in answering your questions about my position on what Christ is revealing to John at the end, but I strongly recommend going through the whole exegesis in detail–which is why I provided it for consideration.)
For our purposes, it’s probably more important that they were saved after having their butts catastrophically kicked by Christ in Rev 19! (Although, to be fair, that in itself wouldn’t necessarily involve universal salvation, or even the continuing hope for it. It would only involve post-mortem salvation of some kind, which could still be limited in either God’s scope or God’s success, i.e. Calv or Arm basically. My Arminian teacher, C. S. Lewis, wouldn’t have had any problem in principle with them being saved in hades before the general res. He might have expected the lake of fire judgment to result in final annihilation for any impenitent sinners, though–it’s hard to be sure from his writing, but he certainly believed in final annihilation sooner or later, and probably at the ultimate coming of Christ.)
Otherwise, insofar as my position goes, the kings could have been saved before the general resurrection and lake of fire event, or after: it isn’t strictly necessary that it was after. Still, the linguistic implications in RevJohn (paralleled in Isaiah 60) point toward the kings of the earth (whether or not they’re the same kings of the earth John is talking about everywhere else in RevJohn) answering the evangelical call after the descent of the NJ, which would be after the lake of fire judgment, too.
What I actually said was that they were sinners outside the city. RevJohn itself emphasizes they cannot be coming in while they still are being sinners. But their coming-in parallels the coming-in of penitent sinners in RevJohn 22. On those terms, the kings of the earth (and those who are following their lead) are answering the evangelical call of the Spirit, slaking their thirst at the river of life (flowing out of the never-closed gates), washing their robes clean in the river, and so obtaining permission to enter through the never-closed gates in order to eat from the leaves of the “log of life” which are for the healing of the nations.
There are also still impenitent sinners outside the city at the end of RevJohn (a position disputed by no one who accepts the text as authoritative in any way). It is those impenitent sinners whom John shows being actively evangelized. One way or another, this evangelization has already happened to the kings of the earth (and whoever is following them in.)
I wouldn’t say (and never have said) they “escaped” it. If they repented and had their names written into the BoL, that isn’t the same as escaping it in any sense I can think of! (Saved from out of it, yes; saved from being put into it, no.) This assumes I’ve read the contexts correctly about them having been put in at all, of course. If they repented before the lake of fire judgment, which is far from impossible (though I think the narrative and thematic contexts make more sense otherwise), then in that sense they could be said to have escaped it.
It doesn’t say anywhere that they (merely) escaped the lake of fire; I would be more than a little bit shocked if it did! Otherwise, see detailed analysis.
RevJohn itself says straight out they’re going into the city; also that no impenitent sinner, suffering the lake of fire judgment, can do so–not unless their names are written in the BoL. As to how those outside, suffering the lake of fire judgment, can obtain permission to enter, they do so the same way anyone else does: by drinking of the river of life (given freely without cost), and washing their robes in it. Again, see the detailed analysis for details if you want to critique the details.
That’s true enough as far as it goes, but you’re neglecting that RevJohn presents entrance into the gates as relating primarily to salvation as a result of evangelical appeal, in close proximity and connection to this verse. It isn’t only about spatial convenience (and maybe not about spatial convenience per se at all).
Thank you for the time you put in to answer my questions…In no way am I disregarding your efforts… but I’m left unsatisfied with your answers.Why? Call me old fashioned, but I like to see specific scripture references supporting your articulate answers. I’m trusting you are basing your articulate answers with specific scripture references to back them, correct? This should be quick and easy for you to list these individual scripture references according to each specific question. Lets do this in a simplistic…just scripture reference only responses. I repeat… just show me scripture references I can go to that support the answers to my questions, fair enough? Thanks for being patient with me and clarifying your views this simple way Lets put this to rest…shall we? I believe these questions to be legitimate to your position:
Where in scripture does it record the Rev 19:21 kings and nations repenting and being escorted out of the ‘lake of fire’ judgment?( these people took the mark of the devil and did not repent before Jesus slewed them) Just provide the scripture references only.
Where in scripture does it record these kings and nations being added to the book of life? Where in scripture does it say they were found written in the book of life? Because Rev 20:11-15 & 21:27 says no one enters the New Jerasulem and New Earth without being found written in the book of life, Period. Just provide scripture references only.
Where in scripture between Rev 19:21 and Rev 21:24 does it record these kings and nations repenting and getting saved and entering into the NJ and NE? Just provide scripture references only please.
Where in Rev 21 & 22 do you see evangelism going on? Just provide scripture references only.
Where in scripture does it record anyone being added to the book of life after the final judgment in Rev 20:11-15? In other words, the people who were not found written in the book of life at Final Judgment and were cast into the lake of fire…where in scripture does it record them being added and found written in the book of life? Because no one enters the NJ and NE without being found written in the book of life. Rev 20:11-15 ; 21:27. Just provide scripture references only.
Then why not critique what I’ve already written on that topic?! I went to the trouble of referencing and discussing a lot of scripture, especially at the end of RevJohn (with chapter and verse cues), in my analysis. You yourself quoted some of it! (And then ignored it…)
I have already pulled this material together with extensive discussion–which you didn’t want to listen to. If you’re looking for mere prooftexts without extensive discussion of contexts, then with all due respect you shouldn’t be a trinitarian theist either–since our case rests entirely on pulling together the contextual implications of a massive number of scriptures which, in themselves, don’t specifically spell out everything in our doctrinal set clearly and succinctly anywhere. While I sympathize with difficulties that non-trinitarians have, I don’t consider our beliefs shot to hell (so to speak ) if I cannot point to some knockdown prooftext that shows everything explicitly in one brief place.
Moreover, you yourself in your own discussions on this topic (and others) commonly recourse to (even-more) distant inferences from (at best) implications of scripture, as has been amply demonstrated. For example, you are absolutely not getting your recent attempt at typological argument concerning the ‘spiritual’ meaning of the Feast cycle, from any explicit and easily prooftexted scriptural reference.
Beyond this, even if I did appeal to some brief scriptural reference in a holistic appeal (look it says it straight out, right there!), you would rightly complain that I am doing so outside of context which might correct the meaning I’m drawing from that mere prooftexting attempt.
The fact is that you are demonstrating you have no intention of discussing in any detail whatever answers I provide; or you would have long since been doing so. Since you cannot or will not deal with those, then you are looking for the easiest way out you can find, regardless of whether it involves a standard you apply to yourself in practice (rhetorical claims otherwise notwithstanding).
Realizing, therefore, that this will do no good whatsoever, I will answer you on your own terms anyway.
– Answer: strictly speaking, no one specific scripture mentions all this at once. As I myself have already made abundantly clear.
In return, I challenge you to answer this simple question: where in scripture does it record the Rev 19:21 kings of the earth being thrown into the lake of fire? Scripture only, please. If your scripture reference does not explicitly reference “the kings of the earth”, you fail. If it explicitly references them but does not explicitly reference them being put “into the lake of fire”, you fail. Substitute meanings are not allowed. Adding up contexts is not allowed. This ought to be as simply easy as possible, in order to clear up what happened to the kings of the earth of Rev 19:21; and if you cannot show this with a simple pure and explicit reference to chapter and verse, you are required to disbelieve that they will ever be put (or were ever put, in terms of narrative revelation) in the lake of fire.
Since this would strictly mean you may only reference Rev 19:21 in regard to “the kings of the earth” mentioned in Rev 19:21, if that one verse does not explicitly say they are thrown into the lake of fire, you will fail, and should therefore give up your unbiblical belief (by this standard).
However, just in case Rev 19:21 doesn’t mention them being cast into the lake of fire, I will allow you to expand your restriction to any mention of “the kings of the earth”. You are thus restricted, in the New Testament, to citing one of the following verses: Matt 17:25; Rev 1:5; Rev 6:15; Rev 17:2; Rev 17:18; Rev 18:3; Rev 18:9; Rev 19:19; Rev 21:24. Which of these show “kings of the earth” being put (or thrown, I’ll allow you to have some variance in the verbiage) into “the lake of fire”? You may add any other New Testament reference to “the kings of the earth”, if you can find one, but only a reference to that phrase. Substitutes for that phrase are not allowed. If your translation turns out to be faulty as to the Greek, you will also fail (although I will allow variable grammatic suffixes for the phrase in Greek.)
You may consult the Old Testament as well, under the same restrictions.
For example: if Isiaiah 24:21 reads “And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones [that are] on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth”, it doesn’t matter if verse 22 reads, “And He shall throw all those whom He punishes into the lake of fire, from which they shall never be saved.” That would be appealing to contextual meaning, beyond what verse 21 itself explicitly says or doesn’t say. If you are allowed to do that, then I am also allowed to appeal to contextual meaning beyond what any verse does or does not explicitly say in itself–which means you will have to deal with the many details I have already provided.
(Incidentally, before you look: Isaiah 24:22 doesn’t read that, even in the KJV. It does read something pretty important, though. Also, for what it’s worth, the verses immediately subsequent to Rev 19:21 do NOT mention the kings of the earth being thrown into the lake of fire, even by context. But even if it did, by the criteria you are insisting on for me to meet, you still would fail.)
Answer: under the strict terms you are requiring, nowhere of course.
In return, I challenge you to show me where it says that the “kings of the earth” of Rev 21:24 are written into (or added into, I will allow some variance in the verbiage) “the book of life”. Substitutions of meaning are not allowed. Contextual references beyond what any verse explicitly and simply says or doesn’t say, are not allowed.
Strictly speaking, this means you cannot appeal to other verses than Rev 21:24, since that would involve drawing a contextual connection to the kings in that verse. If you do so, you fail. Just stick with Rev 21:24 and quote where it says this, please. Keep it as simple as possible.
If, for some reason, you are unable to do this, I will allow you to extend the reference set to anywhere in the Bible, under the same restrictions. No substitute meanings allowed, or you fail. No contextual appeals allowed, beyond what the verse in itself simply and purely says, or you fail. If you cannot find such a reference, you will be obligated to give up a belief that any “king of the earth” shall ever be written or otherwise added to “the book of life”.
So for example, if it happens that Rev 21:24 reads, “and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory into it”, and verse 25 reads, “and those who bring their glory into it shall be (or have been) written into the Lamb’s book of life”, that won’t matter–because that would be a contextual reference. If you can appeal to contextual meaning beyond what a verse simply and purely says in itself, then so can I, and you will have no excuse not to deal with what I have already discussed in detail (with chapter and verse references even!) on the topic.
(Incidentally, before you look: Rev 21:25 doesn’t read that. Verse 27 reads something pretty close, but it doesn’t even continue the sentence grammatically from verse 25. Any appeal to verse 27 would be even more of a contextual attempt than my imaginary verse 25 example. And in effect you are disavowing contextual appeals altogether, in order to avoid having to deal with my argument’s merits.)
See answer, and counterchallenge, to Question 1. (And to Question 2, for that matter. )
Already provided with discussion of details long before (including in something you yourself quoted from me). I would answer by simply citing Rev 22:17, but since it doesn’t contain the word “evangelism” (much less verse 14), I suppose you will deny any evangelism is being talked about there. You have already refused (multiple times) to discuss the contexts of verses in chapter 22 (and barely any contexts from chapter 21), so even if you (somehow!) admit this counts as evangelism, I won’t be surprised if you continue to refuse to accept or consider any contextual discussion there. After all, that one verse certainly doesn’t spell out the whole position, does it? Therefore it cannot possibly count in favor of the whole position in any way! There, that was “simple”.
I will answer this question when you answer where it shows anyone being written into “the book of life” in Rev 22:14 or 17. Or Romans 11. Or anywhere in the Gospels of John or Mark or Matthew. Or anywhere in GosLuke for that matter. Or anywhere in Acts. Or anywhere in any of the epistles other than Philippians. Or anywhere in Philippians other than chapter 4. Or anywhere in RevJohn itself! (21:27 talks about people’s names having been written into the book of life, but not about people’s names being added to it as an action. The same is true for the Philippians reference, by the way, which doesn’t even reference a verb at all.)
If the reference does not feature the phrase “book of life”, you fail. Substitutions of meaning are not allowed. Implications beyond what the verse itself simply and purely says, are not allowed. Contextual appeals are not allowed. Only references to persons’ names being actively added to (or some similar active verb, I’ll allow that) “the book of life” will be acknowledged. If you cannot find such references, you will have to admit that the New Testament doesn’t ever testify to anyone being written into the book of life; and so also that the New Testament doesn’t acknowledge whatever it would mean for someone’s name to be written into the book of life–such as permission to enter the New Jerusalem. Other references to salvation are not allowed to count, only names being actively added to the book of life. If RevJohn 22:14 says that those who rinse their robes thus obtain permission to enter the city gates and eat of the log of life (which, by the way, it does), this cannot possibly count as actually having permission to enter into the New Jerusalem if it does not explicitly say that in gaining such permission their names are also added to the book of life.
If you allow other images to count as being equivalent to having names added to the book of life, then so can I. If you allow appeals to context for any reason, or even logical implications beyond what the text purely and simply says (such as Luke 10:20), then I am allowed the same prerogatives in principle. And you will have no excuse not to deal with what I have already written on that topic.
Relatedly, I challenge you on the same criteria to quote any verse of scripture saying that anything at all happens “after the lake of fire judgment”, or even “after the lake of fire”. Verses which do not include the phrase “after the lake of fire” are not allowed. Substitutions of meaning are not allowed. Contextual appeals are not allowed. Trying to draw any implications beyond what a verse simply and purely says of itself, is not allowed. If you cannot find any such reference in the Old or New Testament, you are obligated to give up any belief you may have that anything at all happens to anyone after the lake of fire judgment.
Relatedly, I challenge you on the same criteria to prove simply from a pure and simple scriptural reference that there is a “lake of fire judgment”. Only cite scripture, please. No commentary from you is allowed. If the scripture does not contain that phrase in Greek, you fail. Implications which supposedly arrive at the content of that phrase are not allowed. Contextual appeals are not allowed. Substitutions of meaning are not allowed. If you cannot show a simple scriptural affirmation that there is a “lake of fire judgment” (remember, creative translations into English will add words to RevJohn and so are not allowed), you are obligated to give up your unbiblical belief in a “lake of fire judgment” (assuming you believe such a thing and were not only hypothetically asking questions about it, which I suppose is possible.)
When you are ready to live by such simple and easy biblical belief, instead of only conveniently holding other people to such standards when they happen to believe something differently than you do (including from the scriptures), let me know. I’m sure I can come up with many (many, many) more such “challenges” that will impress you!
When, on the other hand, you are ready to discuss contexts and any other implications beyond extremely strict and simple prooftext affirmations, let me know that, too. I recommend starting with the detailed work I have already provided for consideration.
)
But accuracy requires that I alert you that the phrase you’re hanging on doesn’t appear to exist in the Greek (or in other linguistic sources) until very late. Someone so concerned about “adding things” to RevJohn ought to be concerned about that!
)
)
