Why are there “thirsty” in Rev 22‘s heaven?

[TotalVictory]

Hi all:

In our study group at church today (I’m SDA so “do church” on Saturday…) we discussed Salvation by faith (alone!) and grace and so on. And I got there very late (for various reasons) but just in time to hear the usual qualifications about “IF one accepts/believes/confesses" etc. That IF one so chooses, he can be “lost”. And the man who was leading out decided this was a good time to quote Revelation 22:15 – “Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices lying…” (NASB)

I bit my tongue because time was nearly over. We’ll bring it up again sometime I’m sure. Then I recalled one of my early questions to this site which I placed in the “Discussion Negative” section and called it “Filthy Still?? It’s over here…

[Filthy Still??)

Of course a few verses earlier (v11) is the “let the filthy be filthy still” passage. It’s been countered elsewhere on this site (can’t find it at the moment) that it’s important to realize that these observations are made in the context of ongoing evangelism! (see v 17)

The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.

Now how is it possible for one who is still thirsty to still be around and invited to drink of that life giving water? Of course the whole idea of Jesus being the water of Life is nicely illuminated in John 4: 13,14

Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.”

Why the offer of water for the thirsty unless it’s to those who clearly have yet to drink? Whoever drinks of the water that JESUS gives shall NEVER be thirsty! That there are still those who are thirsty must mean that they have yet to experience and realize the gift of mercy and grace that is continuously extended. (Hence, also, the wonderful vision of the always open gates!) And since there is no evidence that this evangelism ever ceases, can’t we assume that the logical endpoint of that evangelism is that there is simply no one left to evangelize: they have all responded favorably!

Seems to me that the bible story is about the tenacious persistence of God and the reality that He will accomplish His will and His mission of redemption.
TotalVictory…

Bobx3

[Alex_Smith]

Thanks, that’s an excellent observation I think it also mentions rivers of living water flowing out of the gates somewhere too, although maybe I’m thinking of a different book

[Cindy_Skillman]

I, Jesus, send My messenger to testify these things to you in the ecclesias. I am the root and the race of David, the resplendent morning star." And the spirit and the bride are saying, ‘Come!’ and let him who is hearing say, ‘Come !’ And let him who is thirsting come. Let him who will, take the water of life gratuitously."
(Revelation 22:16-17 CLV)

This particular passage has always looked to me like a postscript of sorts; after telling the story of Revelation, we have the Spirit and the bride speaking to the people who are reading the book. Not trying to put a kink in things, but this still seems like the natural meaning of this passage to me. It is given after the statement in verse 16, which clearly is made to the churches to whom John sent the apocrypha. I’d personally hesitate to use this particular verse as any kind of proof. It seems to me to be talking to John’s readers and not to those outside the Holy City. Am I missing something?

[WE_ARE_ALL_BROTHERS]

This particular passage has always looked to me like a postscript of sorts; after telling the story of Revelation, we have the Spirit and the bride speaking to the people who are reading the book. Not trying to put a kink in things, but this still seems like the natural meaning of this passage to me. It is given after the statement in verse 16, which clearly is made to the churches to whom John sent the apocrypha. I’d personally hesitate to use this particular verse as any kind of proof. It seems to me to be talking to John’s readers and not to those outside the Holy City. Am I missing something?

No, I don’t think you are. It seems like lots of universalists take this passage as though its part of John’s eschatological vision. But that seems like a really unnatural reading to me too. I’ve mentioned this before already, but I wouldn’t have thought universalists would want this passage to be anything other than a post-script, or the unjust are “unjust still” (22:11) and Yeshua would be still to come (22:7, 12 – what would that mean?).

[TotalVictory]

These are valid and interesting observations Cindy and WAAB; and I do find it fascinating how Revelation is read with such varying mixes of mystery and poetry and allegory and metaphor. Further, it’s just hard to even know if Revelation even intends to offer a time sequence into which to place each event. Then again, how can one even HAVE an “event” if not rooted in time somehow!! So I get all that.

But if one is dismissive of the Universalistic implications I’m seeing (rightly or wrongly) here (and I agree: this is not the bibles best case for Universalism by a long stretch) then one must also be dismissive of the “eternal lostness” implications of the mention of the still present sinners. (Or is this aspect also a “postscript”??)

My specific question related to the reading by my friend of Rev 22:15 as “proof” of everlasting lostness of certain sinners. And those sinners who’ve yet to experience the joy of drinking of the water of Life are, logically, (see John 4) described as “thirsty”. I’m reading their condition as current; present – not as a past historical description of what their condition once was. So my question relates to the question of why these people are still around? If they are forever locked in their condition (the implication of “filthy still”) then why even address them? (I don’t find it a natural reading for only the saved to be addressed here; for the saved cannot be described as “thirsty”)

So the passage for me, while not definitive proof of anything (except maybe to underline God’s ultimate victory and glory) certainly keeps the questions alive plus keeps alive the hope of ultimate restoration.

Bobx3

[james.goetz]

Hey TV, in short, I believe that the open gates, the leaves on the tree of life healing the nations, and the drinking of the water describe postmortem eschatology while pointing to the hope of universal restoration in Christ.

[dirtboy]

This particular passage has always looked to me like a postscript of sorts; after telling the story of Revelation, we have the Spirit and the bride speaking to the people who are reading the book. Not trying to put a kink in things, but this still seems like the natural meaning of this passage to me. It is given after the statement in verse 16, which clearly is made to the churches to whom John sent the apocrypha. I’d personally hesitate to use this particular verse as any kind of proof. It seems to me to be talking to John’s readers and not to those outside the Holy City. Am I missing something?

No, I don’t think you are. It seems like lots of universalists take this passage as though its part of John’s eschatological vision. But that seems like a really unnatural reading to me too. I’ve mentioned this before already, but I wouldn’t have thought universalists would want this passage to be anything other than a post-script, or the unjust are “unjust still” (22:11) and Yeshua would be still to come (22:7, 12 – what would that mean?).

I agree. There is definitely a break in the vision, it seems, although that doesn’t take any of the eschatological flavor from it in that when he says that the “bride says come”, the bride is the church in its eschatological state. It still has interesting implications…nothing that I would be dogmatic about, though.

[Revival]

This particular passage has always looked to me like a postscript of sorts; after telling the story of Revelation, we have the Spirit and the bride speaking to the people who are reading the book. Not trying to put a kink in things, but this still seems like the natural meaning of this passage to me. It is given after the statement in verse 16, which clearly is made to the churches to whom John sent the apocrypha. I’d personally hesitate to use this particular verse as any kind of proof. It seems to me to be talking to John’s readers and not to those outside the Holy City. Am I missing something?

No, I don’t think you are. It seems like lots of universalists take this passage as though its part of John’s eschatological vision. But that seems like a really unnatural reading to me too. I’ve mentioned this before already, but I wouldn’t have thought universalists would want this passage to be anything other than a post-script, or the unjust are “unjust still” (22:11) and Yeshua would be still to come (22:7, 12 – what would that mean?).

I agree. There is definitely a break in the vision, it seems, although that doesn’t take any of the eschatological flavor from it in that when he says that the “bride says come”, the bride is the church in its eschatological state. It still has interesting implications…nothing that I would be dogmatic about, though.

Someone needs to explain this to Snitzelhoff, James Goetz, and Jason Pratt. They follow Rev 22 chronologically(when its not) to support post mortem salvation to the people in the LOF.

[Caroleem]

Hey TV, in short, I believe that the open gates, the leaves on the tree of life healing the nations, and the drinking of the water describe postmortem eschatology while pointing to the hope of universal restoration in Christ.

Yes. And i was thinking that maybe some people just take longer in the lake of fire, since it does say it will be to the ages of the ages. Maybe it varies within each person as to how long they are there before they are fully purged and purified… Perhaps everyone dont arrive at all the same time, and that is why the gates are still left open.

[Cindy_Skillman]

Caroleem,

I’m sure you’re right about some taking longer than others. I have in my heart a kind of a picture of a journey along a long, long road. (I may have mentioned this before.) It’s a metaphor that speaks to me. Some of us are trekking toward the Holy City now, and others are going in the other direction. Some are just milling around, having no animosity to going either direction, but having no knowledge and no guide, they do nothing.

So in the age to come, some of us will be nearly there or there and others may be a very, very long way away and still headed in the wrong direction. The furthest away – the bitter, the haters, the exceedingly sorrowful, even, will have the longest journey to make once they turn around. I wonder, will we be permitted to help them, like in CS Lewis’ The Great Divorce? I think the journey back will require great humility and will be especially difficult for the very proud in heart. There will be so much to learn, so much to lay down, so many changes to assent to. In a sense, it will be uphill all the way, but I do think that God will help those who permit it. They’d never make it otherwise.

In this picture, it will take exactly as long as it takes to die to the flesh, so some will come sooner and others will come later – as they’re able and willing to come. Of course, that’s just my own internal vision and may not speak to anyone but me.

As I said earlier, I don’t exactly think the scripture referenced in this thread is talking to the people currently (in the time of John’s vision) in the lake of fire, but I do believe there are plenty of other scriptures to indicate that they will all eventually drink from the waters of life and eat the leaves which are, after all, there for the healing of the nations.

Blessings,
Cindy

[snitzelhoff]

Revival,

Someone needs to explain this to Snitzelhoff, James Goetz, and Jason Pratt. They follow Rev 22 chronologically(when its not) to support post mortem salvation to the people in the LOF.

I’ve never argued that the invitation to “come” at the end is attached to the rest of the chapter. It may be, but my argument doesn’t rest there and you know it. If you’re going to pretend to have a case, at least know what you’re making a case against and stop putting words in my mouth and others’.

[WE_ARE_ALL_BROTHERS]

Hey TV, in short, I believe that the open gates, the leaves on the tree of life healing the nations, and the drinking of the water describe postmortem eschatology while pointing to the hope of universal restoration in Christ.

Yes. And i was thinking that maybe some people just take longer in the lake of fire, since it does say it will be to the ages of the ages. Maybe it varies within each person as to how long they are there before they are fully purged and purified… Perhaps everyone dont arrive at all the same time, and that is why the gates are still left open.

Yes, I agree with you and Cindy. I think this is likely. Isaiah seems to envisage a procession (as may Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:23-24). The Kings tagging along after everyone else seems to support the idea that some will take longer (I think kings would take longer because they are furthest from Yahweh’s will for everyone – servitude, dependence and love) and it seems that it will take some considerable effort for their people to guide them. Many translations state they will be led “in triumphant procession”, or “in captivity” implying that there is some degree of reluctance from the kings. Perhaps they get this from “led” (***nahag***5090) which apparently includes some degree of exerted effort and driving.

11 “Your gates will be open continually; they will not be closed day or night, so that men may bring to the Kingdom the wealth of the people, with even their kings led (in procession).
— Isaiah 60:11-12

[Revival]

Revival,

Someone needs to explain this to Snitzelhoff, James Goetz, and Jason Pratt. They follow Rev 22 chronologically(when its not) to support post mortem salvation to the people in the LOF.

I’ve never argued that the invitation to “come” at the end is attached to the rest of the chapter. It may be, but my argument doesn’t rest there and you know it. If you’re going to pretend to have a case, at least know what you’re making a case against and stop putting words in my mouth and others’.

Did you not say Rev 22:2 extends to the people in the LOF or outside the gates? If I’m mistaken I apologize.

[snitzelhoff]

Did you not say Rev 22:2 extends to the people in the LOF or outside the gates? If I’m mistaken I apologize.

The discussion was about 22:16-17, where the Spirit and the Bride invite all who are thirsty to “come.” Cindy, WAAB, and Dirtboy were discussing that passage as not necessitating Universalism because it’s written as a postscript to the main text, and not part of the Revelation 22 narrative itself–a position I’m inclined to agree with, but you said that someone “ought to tell” that to myself and others, as though we had been using those verses to defend a Universalistic understanding of Revelation. Were you just confused about which passage they were talking about?

[Revival]

Did you not say Rev 22:2 extends to the people in the LOF or outside the gates? If I’m mistaken I apologize.

The discussion was about 22:16-17, where the Spirit and the Bride invite all who are thirsty to “come.” Cindy, WAAB, and Dirtboy were discussing that passage as not necessitating Universalism because it’s written as a postscript to the main text, and not part of the Revelation 22 narrative itself–a position I’m inclined to agree with, but you said that someone “ought to tell” that to myself and others, as though we had been using those verses to defend a Universalistic understanding of Revelation. Were you just confused about which passage they were talking about?

Well if you agree with them then you’re as wrong as they are. John’s vision stops at Rev 22:5 and the rest of the chapter is talking to the present church not evangelizing the people who are in the LOF.

[snitzelhoff]

John’s vision stops at Rev 22:5 and the rest of the chapter is talking to the present church not evangelizing the people who are in the LOF.

Which is what they were saying (and most days I’m inclined to agree; I certainly don’t build my case there). It appears that in your zeal to find something to disagree with, you’ve misread the entire discussion. It happens.

[Revival]

John’s vision stops at Rev 22:5 and the rest of the chapter is talking to the present church not evangelizing the people who are in the LOF.

Which is what they were saying (and most days I’m inclined to agree; I certainly don’t build my case there). It appears that in your zeal to find something to disagree with, you’ve misread the entire discussion. It happens.

I was agreeing with them and telling them they should tell you guys. I know Jason uses Rev 22:16-17 as evangelizing the people in the LOF.

[snitzelhoff]

I’m not dogmatically against it, but the exegetical case for that seems too shaky for me to try to make a case from it; I’ve never built my case from 22:16-17.

[Revival]

I’m not dogmatically against it, but the exegetical case for that seems too shaky for me to try to make a case from it; I’ve never built my case from 22:16-17.

Seems too shaky? How about impossible since the evangelistic tone of Rev 22:16-17 is to the church toward people who are alive in the present world and not to people who have been handed an unpardonable penalty in the LOF.

[Caroleem]

Hey TV, in short, I believe that the open gates, the leaves on the tree of life healing the nations, and the drinking of the water describe postmortem eschatology while pointing to the hope of universal restoration in Christ.

Yes. And i was thinking that maybe some people just take longer in the lake of fire, since it does say it will be to the ages of the ages. Maybe it varies within each person as to how long they are there before they are fully purged and purified… Perhaps everyone dont arrive at all the same time, and that is why the gates are still left open.
Yes, I agree with you and Cindy. I think this is likely. Isaiah seems to envisage a procession (as may Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:23-24). The Kings tagging along after everyone else seems to support the idea that some will take longer (I think kings would take longer because they are furthest from Yahweh’s will for everyone – servitude, dependence and love) and it seems that it will take some considerable effort for their people to guide them. Many translations state they will be led “in triumphant procession”, or “in captivity” implying that there is some degree of reluctance from the kings. Perhaps they get this from “led” (***nahag***5090) which apparently includes some degree of exerted effort and driving.

11 “Your gates will be open continually; they will not be closed day or night, so that men may bring to the Kingdom the wealth of the people, with even their kings led (in procession).
— Isaiah 60:11-12

Check what this guy Larry salvationofall says about the gates being left open. He also refers to Isaiah 60:11-12. In part 2, he also talks a little about the saints ruling and reining. Its pretty interesting.
If any of you go on youtube, you may have seen his teachings…
They’re not real long, here, see what he has to say.

Part 1
youtube.com/watch?v=H_PKZ0tvbOA

Part 2
youtube.com/watch?v=Kqd-_xuy … re=related

See guys, It makes no difference if anything in Rev 22 appears to be a case for UR or not, because of the open gates in Rev 21.