The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Who are really the kings of the earth in Rev 21:24?

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#81

I am not talking about the individual Adam. Adam is figurative for cursed man (after all his name does mean “man”) à la 1 Corinthians 15:22. I noticed Auggy using it and felt it was a good metaphor, sorry for confusing you. But now that this misunderstanding has been cleared up, please engage with the rest of my post. :wink:

I represent an ancient flavour but it’s not important :laughing: So let’s ignore Satan and his devils for now and just focus on “man and the heavens and the earth back to a Gen 1 and 2 state”. Are you saying that you concede the ambiguity of “eis aiōnas aiōnōn”? I admit, I had trouble following you there.

#82

There is no scripture support for man going through some kind of refined spiritual bleach purgatory. It does matter what flavor of UR you represent because it just shows the inconsistency of this unbiblical belief in whatever flavor of UR. If the Holy Spirit were doing the teaching He gives the same doctrine to every Christian…no inconsistencies or confusion.

Rev 14:9-11 states there is no hope for you once you take the mark and worship the beast…its over for you…your eternal destiny has been sealed. God bless.

#83

I have spent this whole thread trying to explain the scriptural support! And you have not seriously engaged with any of my views even once. It doesn’t matter what flavour I represent because you are clearly not receptive to any discussion or biblical exegesis whatsoever. I don’t understand why you have even come here. I am leaving this thread before I get angry.

Godspeed to your future studies, brother.
Andrew.

#84

Sorry, I did engage it, maybe not to your liking. Your theology is as confusing as your language explaining it. There is no confusion when it comes to God or his word. God bless.

#85

funny, i didn’t find it confusing at all.

#86

And I would be extremely suspicious of how they arrived at those numbers. I mean, how do they know what percentage of Christians are actually saved? :laughing:

#87

Greetings everyone. I just read a post about this at 4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.com
Here is the link if anyone is interested in this sister’s article:
4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.c … ch-results

Agape, Obadiah

#88

**I just realized that I only put the link to the sister’s main page.
She has written many articles and posts. ( See her profile and "Link to Directory of Articles) She is an anointed sister.
Here is the link to just the article “Who are the Kings of the Earth.
pearl-kingsofearth.blogspot.com/” **

Agape, Obadiah

#89

Yes, and originally you just double-posted the same link, so I deleted the extra one.

So, you just now read her article on the kings of the earth, and then… somehow came to this forum next? I’d be curious to hear how that happened.

Or did you read the thread here, and then went looking around and also subsequently found that article, then came back here to add a link to it?

#90

Hi Jason,
Sorry for the odd style in my posting. I am not very good at this “forum style” posting. I have been to a couple of other forums and the way to put a link in is different at them. That is why I double posted. (Thanks for fixing my double posting)
The reason I found your forum was that I went to Google and typed in “Who are the Kings of the Earth” to see if I could bring up Pearl’s article that way, and the article from this Christian site came up. I was very interested in seeing what other Christians saw in the scriptures. Jesus uses whom he wishes to do God’s will since he is God’s representative. When I saw that the article here was in harmony with the one Pearl wrote and most of all is in harmony with scripture, I thought Christians here might be interested in examining Pearl’s scriptural backing on the subject.
I think all Christians should be searching for the Bible’s answers to this question as well as others.
Agape, Obadiah

#91

So you knew about Ms. Pearl’s article already before doing the Google search to see if her one-article weblog on the topic turned up. You didn’t just recently discover it, after being here a while, and then decide to bring it to attention. I guess her search-engine optimization strategy was working, though. :slight_smile:

This isn’t really an article. This is a discussion thread, where different members have different assessments of the scriptural testimony; we have some other threads discussing the topic as well, and in more detail than in this thread. You’re welcome to discuss the topic, too, here or elsewhere.

Certainly, and they’re welcome to discuss and compare the data and the logic of the approaches here if they want. :slight_smile:

We do that a lot, so you should be right at home here.

#92

Thanks Jason. I will stop in now and then. I am really busy though trying to make a living. LOL
Agape, Obe

#93

Revelation is a vision of the last 2000 years and the next 1000 years. It’s the story of the work of the Word of God and the tribulation of the people who hold the Word of God and Christ’s ultimate victory. The vision manifested itself in the world quickly during the time of the Apostles and is continuing to unfold.
The tribulation started almost instantly after the Pentecost. Revelation has been, is and will continue to unfold.

#94

i personally agree, as far as that goes (Revelation is something my grandfather was obsessed with as a Pre-Tribulationist, and it drove me a bit mad as much as i loved the old guvnor, so i didn’t focus hugely on it after he passed on)…but i think we need to clarify that it’s our view, and that it’s one of many, and we could all be partially correct on some things, and what is likely is that we’re mostly all wrong on it. There was a bit of debate, i heard, when they were deciding what books would be Canon, and The Revelation of Saint John came up. I don’t think it was a clear-cut decision reached unanimously, though i’m happy to be corrected there.

I think there’s a fair bit in it that refers to Rome, A.D. 70, and the sacking of Jerusalem and the emperor Nero.

As to the topic of the thread…i think the Kings of the Earth are the Kings of the Earth…and they first of all are judged and cleansed…and then they walk in through the games of The New Jerusalem eating the fruit which is for their healing, drinking of the ever flowing River of Life, and are welcomed into the Kingdom…no longer are they murderers or thieves or other guilty types. That identity is changed.

#95

I empathise with your dismay of a pre-trib rapture. There is no precedent in the Bible. God only rescues his own from his “Wrath” (Noah, Moses, Job etc.) but rarely from tribulation. We are supposed to go through tribulation. It builds character and separates the men from the boys or in this case the faithful from the fence sitters not to mention the cleansing and judgement aspect of tribulation.

Now the fun stuff.
The Kings are not yet national leaders who are given power by a coming Caliph of Islam and he will come out of Saudi Arabia.
But ask me again in an hour and I’ll tell you a different scenario.
I have held a long time view that the first Beast of Rev is the RCC and the second Beast is Islam.
Oh look! We didn’t even have to wait an hour and I already have a new belief about the Beasts.
Never mind, I saw something else and I changed my mind again.
Now I believe, Oops…never mind.

#96

I had forgotten that I had replied to the OP with the above and was reviewing the posts intent on mentioning to Revival that the onus of proof is on him to show from the literary context of Revelation that the “kings” in 21:24 are not the same “kings” referenced everywhere else in Revelation. If “kings” is used throughout Revelation to reference a specific group of people then it’s only reasonable, logical that the word “kings” references the same group of people in 21:24, without some evidence in the context to the contrary.

Though I believe Revelation pictures the ultimate reconciliation of all to God, frankly I do not look to Revelation to establish doctrine because I do not believe that was its purpose. It is **Apocalyptic **literature meant to inspire, to encourage, to embolden the hearers. It is meant to inspire people pictorially that good triumphs over evil, that the kingdom of God ultimately conquers all! In other biblical literature, historical narrative and letters, the rule is “Interpet literally unless obviously metaphorical”; whereas, in **Apocalyptic **literature the rule is “Interpret metaphorically unless obviously literal.”

To me, something as important in understanding the character of God as is Hell, if it were true I think it would be explicitly and repeatedly named and discribed in scripture; but it’s not. When one correctly interpets Sheol and Hades as grave or realm of the dead, and Gehenna as Ben Hinnom Valley, then one finds that Hell is not even once actually named in scripture. And it is not as if the concept of Hell was unknown to the Jews. The Egyptians wrote of the tortures in the afterlife of those who ticked off the gods. And the Greeks wrote of those who ticked of the gods being tormented forever, like Tantilus who was stood in a pool of water with a fruit tree overhead only to have the water receed when he bent to have it receed so that he couldn’t quench his thirst. Or if he reached for a piece of fruit it would retract out of his reach.

Thus when one considers that Moses did not warn of Hell, and neither did Jesus or Paul, it doesn’t make much sense to read Hell into John’s Revelation, especially considering John in his Gospel does not even once quote Jesus warning of being cast into Ben Hinnom Valley! And then if one considers the possibility, likelyhood imo, that the lake of the fire and the brimstone is actually a reference to the Dead Sea, then it’s only reasonable that anything alive cast therein could swim out. And this fits wonderfully with the picture of Jesus and the Bride saying come and drink of the waters of life! I imagine anyone who has swam in the Dead Sea can attest to how thirsty one becomes.

But let’s not muddy the waters of anyone’s “clear” interpretation of scripture with facts!

#97

Strictly speaking, it isn’t just the term “kings” (since God’s people are called kings and priests previously in RevJohn, for example), but the phrase “kings of the earth”, which God’s people are never called previously in RevJohn. Obviously they’re God’s people in chapter 21, but they weren’t previously.

Oh, looking back over the thread I see this is one of those I somehow never got around to. [tag]WE ARE ALL BROTHERS[/tag] did a great job! That Zeph 3 reference was trumpy, too, [tag]redhotmagma[/tag]. :sunglasses:

Having caught up on the thread, I think the only spare from BAaron’s (Revival’s) original post was Rev 1:5-6. Contextually the point seems clear enough: the pagan kings of the earth (even the ones oppressing the church in the day of John) aren’t the real kings, Jesus is, and He’s king over them, too, even though they don’t acknowledge Him (being rebel kings). That’s a pretty standard claim throughout the OT (with Jesus == God), and certainly fits the rest of RevJohn up until Rev 21, which as WAAB pointed out references Isaiah 60 heavily (among a couple other scriptures) to indicate those are previously rebel kings now repenting and coming in.

Moreover, those who are faithful now are coming into the kingdom of Christ to be priests; and later also to become kings as well as priests. But those who are already faithful aren’t called “kings of the earth” either here or later in RevJohn. Even at Rev 21, the kings of the earth weren’t already faithful (per backreference to Isaiah 60), though they’re certainly faithful and repentant of their sins now (or they wouldn’t be able to enter the NJ where none may come whose name isn’t written in the book of life.)

The detail a couple of verses later in chapter 1, where all the tribes of the earth, even those who pierced Him, will see Jesus and mourn, might or might not be construed as penitent mourning. It certainly means that in Zech 12:10, when YHWH arrives to defend Israel from her final siege, defeating her enemies and sending the (or a) spirit of grace and supplication so that those who had survived the battle up until then will mourn over Him Whom they had pierced as they would over a firstborn son. But God had sent that final battle against them because they had been impenitent sinners up until then; it is only when they see YHWH personally descending to rescue them at last they they repent, and mourn instead of rejoicing – but God isn’t coming to destroy them but to save them.

That isn’t “all the tribes of the earth” at that time, only the survivors of Jerusalem. But Rev 1:7 combines the theme and language of Matt 24:30 (including reference to the arrival of the Son of Man to take the throne of the Ancient of Days from Daniel) with Zech 12:10, and the combination is suggestive that all the tribes of the earth will be mourning like the ones who pierced YHWH, due to YHWH pouring out the spirit of grace and supplication. That wouldn’t necessarily have to happen all at once, if there are details indicating it doesn’t, and also details indicating it happens to everyone eventually. (Which there are, and there are. :slight_smile: Zeph 3:8-9 being one pertinent example.)