The Evangelical Universalist Forum

JRP on the Final Chapters of John's Revelation

Jason,

Thanks for your post. Lots of things to mull over… all in all I appreciate your commentary.

Something you said, in particular, jumped out at me:

After I had been studying UR for a while, I had a dream. I almost never think twice about any of my dreams. However, I had a particularly brief and vivid dream of a discussion with my wife (who doesn’t have a strong opinion on UR either way). In the dream, I asked her what the purpose of the lake of fire was. She responded without hesitation that the purpose of the Lake of Fire was to “dehydrate” people. If I recall correctly, I woke up immediately. I was about to dismiss the entire dream, as “just a dream” when I thought about Rev. 21:6, which says that those who are thirsty can drink without cost… As you mention above, perhaps the lake of fire is to make people thirsty enough to take that free drink.

I was just interested to see you sharing a similar idea, so I thought I would share my unusual experience.

(edit - I hope I’m not taking things off-topic here…)

Andrew

Not at all–thanks for sharing!

That does seem to be how John deploys the lake of fire toward the end of RevJohn, although that shouldn’t be held exclusive to the other purposes of our God the consuming fire (from Heb 12). But the same end goal is in view for God in either case.

Might I add that this seems to fit along the teaching of the rich man and Lazarus, where the rebel asks Abraham to send Lazarus down for a drop of water on his tongue. And I was incidently mulling over this a couple of days ago, particuliarly about the fact that Abraham could not send Lazarus due to the great gulf fixed between them. Seems that the rebel was looking for water from the wrong source! (That is, he was attempting to quench his thirst on the Law when He needed to go to the Source). It seems significant that Lazarus is identified with Abraham, for whom the OT speaks about redemption for those that are poor and destitute, for which the Law has provision, as in the gleanings of Lev. 19:10, 15 and Lev. 23:22 and in which David speaks of in I Samuel 2:8, “*He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and he hath set the world upon them.” * In the end, Abraham tells the rebel that that his brothers, who risk the same fate, have Moses and the prophets, wherein if they don’t even heed to the Law, they will not heed to one risen from the dead.

You will notice of course that the rebel addressed Abraham first. One wonders what would have happened if the rebel lifted up his voice in mercy to God, whether, like the publican, he could have been justified as a repentent sinner. If the story is true, one wonders if he ever came to his senses, like the prodigal. Perhaps he is no longer thirsty.

BTW, thanks Jason for such an extended exegesis on the problem at hand.

I thought about making some remarks myself along that line in reply, Dondi! :smiley: (But then I had to go do something else.)

There are several more ways to read the Dives/Lazarus parable in light of Rev 21+, but that’s a good start.

1.) The Rich Man (in Latin “Dives”, so traditionally in discussion that’s been his nickname for ease reference) is not penitent about his sins. He doesn’t even seem to acknowledge them!

2.) As you noted, he’s asking for water from the wrong place.

3.) He only wants the water to escape his punishment. He shows no signs (yet) of wanting to be freed from his sins and his sinning.

4.) His appeal to Abraham is probably based on the contemporary rabbinic understanding (actually ratified by St. Paul) that God will save all those who are children of Abraham by race (though St. Paul, following Jesus, extends that out to Gentiles “grafted into the promise”). As John the Baptist relevantly warns the Pharisees and Sadducees elsewhere in the Synoptics, they shouldn’t just rely on being “sons of Abraham” without repenting of their sins, and certainly shouldn’t give themselves airs on that ground (seeing as God can raise sons of Abraham “from these very stones”, probably intending a rabbinic double-entendre pun for pagans = stones, though also literally true one way or another!–whether the long way or the short, we have all been made from dirt as well as water, air and fire.)

5.) He isn’t treating Lazarus as being a person, but still as only (at best) a slave for his convenience.

6.) Moreover, Dives treats Lazarus as a slave whom he thinks nothing of expecting to walk through the fire to be tormented like himself (so far as he understands the fire)!

In other words, he’s most likely appealing to Abraham on the ground of being (but only merely) a son of Abraham, yet he isn’t willing to treat Lazarus with the same dignity due to a son of Abraham: as Dives can easily see for himself that Lazarus must be!

7.) The gap between them cannot be like having them separated in some pocket dimension; otherwise we would have the notion of Dives being completely separated from communion with God, but not entirely separated from communion with Abraham!

8.) Dives ought to have been not only asking for the true water of life, but he should have been cooperating with the consuming fire, i.e. the Holy Spirit the one and only unquenchable and everlasting fire, our God. He’s still defying the fire, thus still (even literally in several ways) sinning against the Holy Spirit. And he wants Abraham and Lazarus to join him in acting in defiance against the fire.

(This is probably the spiritual meaning of the great chasm they cannot cross even if they wanted to.)

Asking for even the river of life (i.e Christ) in order to merely escape the fire (i.e. the Holy Spirit), is to seek some kind of schism in the unity of God as well (and worse, to do so for one’s own benefit). The Holy Spirit encourages those outside the New Jerusalem after the lake of fire judgment to quench their thirst, wash their robes, enter the city and eat of the tree of life; but it isn’t so that they can escape the fire. Rather they will be baptized in Spirit Who is the fire, and so (in RevJohn imagery) they will never need light for God Himself will be their light.

One huge topic I didn’t go into in my report, partly because I didn’t need to in order to establish my points, and partly because it would have greatly increased the length and complexity of the report, is how the book of life (though not always talked about using that phrase) is referenced in the Old Testament.

As Dondi points out here in a comment from the original thread that this report is an answer to, though: not only is it surely implied in Exodus 32 that having one’s name blotted out is not a hopeless situation (especially compared to the culmination of the Song of Moses at Deut 32–which, remember, is topically referenced in a scene of RevJohn as I described above); but almost the last verse of the book of the final OT prophet, Malachi 3:16 (and surrounding contexts) directly shows God adding people’s names back to the book of life (called there the book of remembrance before Him) after His exhortation of repentance to them and their repentance.

As I carefully qualified just afterward: in terms of narrative logic, this isn’t shown happening in-or-after the day of judgment which Malachi prophesied; it’s shown happening in Malachi’s day. But of course, Mal’s prophecy was about the forthcoming punishment of God (in the day of the Lord to come) being very and repeatedly emphasized as intended for hopeful refining. So in effect, the intended result of the day of judgment will be to add names back to the book, just as God added in the names of penitent rebels in Malachi’s own day. Malachi testifies that it can be done (in case anyone is unwilling to add up details elsewhere, or to accept St. Paul’s testimony on it using a different metaphor); and, in effect, that it will be done.

Thanks, Dondi, for bringing up those verses!

Jason,
I thought this was a great response. Excellent job.

My pleasure. I enjoy digging up stuff. Amazing how what a simple word search like ‘book’ can come up with on biblegateway.com.

That’s a good site, true!

Habitually I use BlueLetterBible.org for doing searches. It’s a little messy trying to search in Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic) of course, but what isn’t? :wink:

Good stuff Jason!

About this:

UBS: and will-walk the nations by/through the light of it
UBS: kai peripatesousin ta ethne dia tou photos autes
TR: kai ta ethne ton sozomenon en t(i)o photi autes peripatesousi
TR: and the nations of the saved in the light of it will-walk

What’s interesting here (which I didn’t see you comment on) is that the TR adds “of the saved” to qualify the nations and thus creating two different groups of “nations,” those saved (who will walk in the light) and those not saved (those in the Lake of Fire, who will not walk in the light). I wonder if “of the saved” was added to avoid UR conclusions.

Tom

An excellent thread and thanks again Jason for your time and considerable efforts.

Most posters here will think of themselves as very definitely being inside the New Jerusalem. Speaking as one who will probably be on the outside I can say that this ‘interpretation’ (if I dare use such an emotive word) gives me hope whereas the eternal torment ‘interpretation’ makes me feel annihilation would be the greater good.

I wander if “of the saved” was taken out to assist UR conclusions? This is discussed in Aaron37’s answer to Jason’s challenge in Rev 21. :wink:

And answered, both here and there, with the observation that the phrase appears in NOT EVEN ONE RevJohn text I could find, Greek or otherwise, before the 15th century.

You certainly, neither here nor there, provided any counter-evidence otherwise. The note you found in the margin of your New King James doesn’t in the least specify what known texts the phrase is positively coming from, and doesn’t bother mentioning more than two of the UNANIMOUS PRE-15TH CENTURY TEXTS that don’t include the phrase.

(This is something TGB probably remembers, even if you do not. :wink: )

Right. The phrase “of the saved” isn’t original. It’s far easier to account for its being inserted that for its being removed.

Tom

Tom: I wonder if “of the saved” was added to avoid UR conclusions.

A37: I wander if “of the saved” was taken out to assist UR conclusions?


Aaron, are you asking a question? I can’t tell. You have a question mark there, but your words make an assertion and don’t ask a question. I think you mean “wonder” not “wander.” Or maybe you really do mean to wander about!

It’s impossible to account for the textual history on the assumption that some universalist scribe removed the original “of the saved” in order to promote his false teaching in the face of orthodoxy. The text reads “nations” and not “nations of the saved.”

And besides, I’ve spoken in tongues over this question for some time and the Spirit has revealed the infallible truth to me. I can’t possibly be wrong now. You can only choose to agree with me (and align yourself with God) or disagree and so reject God’s truth. If you’re teachable, you’ll do the former.

Tom

To be fair (and as I noted), it needn’t necessarily have been inserted to try to underplay (or deny) the evangelism and repentance in the final chapters of RevJohn. After all, if anyone inserted it late, it was the Greek Orthodox, and they’re historically pretty favorable to universalism (though not dogmatically so.) And after all, it isn’t like anyone claims that those who are NOT saved enter the New Jerusalem. (RevJohn itself is very emphatic otherwise, including just shortly afterward.)

More likely a scribe inserted it as a stylistic riff, to make the overall clause sound more similar to something a couple of verses later. That was one of several relatively common reasons for scribal alteration.

As I noted, dispute over this phrase is only important to people who think its inclusion weighs anything against evangelism, repentance and salvation at the end of RevJohn. (Or, at a more technical level, to people hugely gung-ho in favor of the Textus Receptus, especially that it somehow is in fact the “Received Text”.) The rest of us would have exactly no problem with its originality to the text, except insofar as the actual copy evidence strongly indicates it isn’t original. :wink:

Evangelism doesn’t make sense if you believe in one final judgment for mankind that takes place in Rev 20:11-15. ( which I believe Rev 20:11-15 is final judgment)

Jason, Do you believe that the bible teaches one judgment for mankind that will be final? If not, why not? :wink:

But the Spirit has revealed universalism to me infallibly, so there’s no more to discuss really. Will you agree with me and God, Aaron, or will you reject the truth?

:nerd:
Tom

Yea, but you’re a fallible interpreter of whether you’re infallible! :astonished:

Roofus: You’re a fallible interpreter of whether you’re infallible!

Tom: You’re not teachable!

Tom :sunglasses: