The appearance of the kings of the earth in New Jerusalem is often used by Universalists as an argument for the reality of post-mortem conversion. But when this argument is presented to traditional Christians, a common criticism is these saved kings are not the same evil kings of the earth described earlier in Revelation. This criticism makes the point that there are other favorable references to kings, thrones, and priests in Revelation, and these are the kings that enter New Jerusalem, not the evil ones earlier described as kings of the earth.
I think this criticism is weak because it ignores the possibility that the term kings of the earth, as used in Revelation and perhaps elsewhere, is an idiom. An idiom is a combination of words that have a figurative meaning separate from their literal meaning. In Revelation, kings of the earth could well be an idiom for evil leaders of the earth, for it is consistently alluded to in negative ways in Revelation (17:2, 18:3, and 18:9). This negative treatment continues in 19:19-21 where these men are assumed to be thrown into the lake of fire because of their evil ways. But after that, for the first time, these kings of the earth are cast in a favorable light as they are described as entering New Jerusalem (21:24).
Now, there are several direct and indirect references, in Revelation and elsewhere in the Bible, to other kings who acted on earth, and some of these men are cast in a positive light. But these men are not described specifically as kings of the earth, so they are not encompassed by the idiom. In an idiom, it’s the word combination, not the individual words, that captures the figurative sense typical of the idiom. So, if the term *kings of the earth *is indeed an idiom, the mention in Revelation of other kings, thrones, and priests who are good is irrelevant to the argument.
An example of a common idiom that is very similar to the biblical term *kings of the earth *is ladies of the evening. The term refers not just to any ladies associated with the evening, as a literal sense would denote. No, the term ladies of the evening has a distinct, figurative sense that differs from the literal sense. The term means “prostitute,” while other women who are in some way associated with the evening are not typically prostitutes.
So, to continue with this analogy, let’s say Revelation repeatedly refers to ladies of the evening in a negative way, culminating with their being thrown into the lake of fire. But then, in a complete reversal, they are described as entering New Jerusalem. This reversal would be significant and would imply that being thrown into the lake of fire purifies and saves these women. One would not think that these women of the evening are different from the negatively described women of the evening alluded to earlier. They would be thought of as the same because they are described with the same idiomatic expression: ladies of the evening. This view would not be negated by other references to ladies in Revelation, even if they are in some other ways associated with the evening. No, it’s the specific term *ladies of the evening *that has a figurative meaning apart from the literal meaning of the words making up the term, just as it’s the specific term *kings of the earth *that has a figurative meaning apart from the literal meaning of the words.
Does anyone have any insight on the possibility that the term *kings of the earth *is indeed an idiom, as used in Revelation or anywhere else?
