Everyone (especially Roofus)

Jason said: So, who are the ones who would be thirsting and who need washing?

Rev 22:15; the ones outside: the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons, etc. (the typical list used in RevJohn and elsewhere). Everyone who still loves and practices their lying. These are the ones with filthy robes (v.11–at least many of whom are expected to keep doing wrong in the interim period once the tribulation starts.) Are they in the lake of fire at this point in the revelation?

Rev 21:8; yep, their portion is in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. (Which, poetically speaking, might be expected to make someone thirsty!) Will they ever come into the city?

Rev 21:27; nope, so long as they remain unclean and keep practicing their abomination and lying. Does that mean the gates are closed?

Rev 21:25; nope, not in the daytime–and there shall never be a night there! Why are those gates still open?

Rev 21:24,25; so that the nations (the pagans who do not yet know God) can walk by its light (which is the glory of God and the Lamb) and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory and the glory and the honor of the nations into it. Who are the kings of the earth?

Rev 19:19; we last saw them ganging up with the beast to make war on Christ and getting their butts righteously kicked, leaving their bodies scattered for the birds of the air (which counts as shepherding them with a rod of iron, v.15–compare to the end of Psalm 23. Many English translations obscure the term in Rev there as “rule”, but in Greek it’s clearly “shepherd”.)

Nope, you are wrong… my brother. The explanation of who the kings and nations are in Rev 21:22-24 is a simple one.

The kings and nations of Rev 21:22-24 are saved Gentiles prophesied in Isaiah 60:3 not the kings in Revelation 19:19-21.However, John’s statement is probably a synthesis of a number of elements in Isaiah 60 related to the role of the nations in the eschatological restoration of Jerusalem.(David Mathewson wrote in Isaiah in the New Testament, Steve Moyise, M. J. J. Menken eds. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005. p. 206-209:)

60:3 nations are drawn to Jerusalem’s light
60:5 wealth of the nations comes to the city
60:6 nations will come bringing gold and incense
60:10 kings shall come and minister
60:11 nations will bring their wealth and kings come in procession
60:16 Jerusalem sucks the milk of nations and the breasts of kings

There are several parallels between Isaiah 60 and Revelation 21, which are both prophecies about the holy city. Many of the hidden references to Isaiah’s prophecy in Revelation 21 are revealed by the links to corresponding verses in the other chapter below. I believe this to be accurate but I always encourage you to do you own research of the information given and to pray of over it to receive confirmation from the Holy Spirit.

vinyl2.sentex.ca/~tcc/GR/I60R21.html

God bless,
Aaron

Yes, but it says the redeemed will live in the city itself. What do you do with that?

Keep in mind ladies and gentleman… Jason wants you to believe that the kings and nations who took the mark of the beast and worshipped his image in Rev 19:19-21 are the same kings and nations who Isaiah prophesied about in Isaiah 60:3.( Rev 21:24)…Isaiah 60:3 is a prophesy fulfiled in Rev 21:24 ( the salvation of the Gentiles) Lets look in Isaiah 49:6 that also supports this:

Isaiah 49:6 " And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

Btw, Isaiah reveals the destiny of the kings and nations who served the devil in Rev 19:19-21 in Isaiah 60:12

Isaiah 60:12 “For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted”.

For those who don’t know (e.g. new members in the future), Aaron37 is replying to the detailed analysis I provided here:

There are links in that thread to earlier portions of the discussion as well.

Not exactly a comprehensive answer, since you’re taking it out of context of RevJohn itself. For example, you’re completely ignoring the information I pointed out before arriving at the kings of the earth going into the New Jerusalem.

You are, of course, entirely correct about the connection of RevJohn 21 to Isaiah 60 (especially verse 60:11, where the wording is almost exactly the same). This is extremely far from being a problem, however, once the context is factored into the account. Which, notably, you didn’t bother to do.

Isaiah 60 shows kings of nations who were formerly rebels against God and enemies of Israel, repenting and coming into the New Jerusalem after God has punished and then (in the Day of the Lord) restoring the penitent rebel Israel. If they don’t serve the redeemed Jerusalem, they will be as utterly destroyed as Israel itself was–back when Israel was impenitent. This punishment of utter destruction was far from hopeless for Israel (as shown, to give one of many examples, very famously in the next chapter 61); and other places in Isaiah show that such punishment is far from hopeless for the rebel pagans, too.

Rev 21 shows kings of nations who were formerly rebels against God and enemies of Israel (cf also Isaiah 2, just as David Mattheson mentioned), repenting and coming into the New Jerusalem (in the Day of the Lord) whose light is for the nations and whose gates (just as in Isaiah 60!) will never be closed. If they don’t serve the redeemed Jerusalem, they’ll have to stay outside suffering the destruction of the lake of fire judgment. How hopeless that judgment is, is clearly shown by those contexts in RevJohn you skipped past. (Spoiler: not hopeless at all. ) The only element missing is that RevJohn doesn’t have much if anything to do (unlike Isaiah) with the punishment, repentance and restoration of rebel Israel! (Unless “Babylon” is supposed to count as rebel Jerusalem as well as more obviously Rome, which is suggestively possible, especially via links to Zephaniah, but not obviously certain.)

As I went on to point out: “So either the author forgot his previously established distinction; or for some reason he has started using a term previously reserved for villains, for people who are clearly not acting as villains in that scene; or those are the previous villains (the “Quirky Miniboss Squad” as they might be called in modern story trope terminology), now penitent (having been shepherded by Christ back in Rev 19), and leading in fulfilling the evangelical call to those still outside the city (as exemplified later in chp 22).”

With all due respect to Mr. Mattheson and his (merely stated) opinion otherwise, his argument and information only makes it more clear that these are the same kings of the earth as in RevJohn 19, now repenting after being punitively shepherded by Christ in the meanwhile. Indeed, Mr. Mattheson himself (over against Beale) understands the kings of the earth in RevJohn 21 to represent “Those who previously worshipped the beast now render[ing] allegiance to God and the Lamb.”

(It would be interesting to see how he comes to this conclusion and yet disagrees that these are the same kings of the earth from Rev 19. He has a huge topical disconnect for no good stated reason!)

I had a lot more discussion concerning those “kings of the earth” in that post. Hopefully the Holy Spirit will someday encourage you to do your own research of the information I gave there, rather than just conveniently ignoring it.

(Note: since this thread is presented as “Discussion Negative”, I’m moving it to that category.)

I haven’t worked very hard at this, but it occurred to me: couldn’t the invitation to those outside the city gates be a time shift back to the present, vs. a future, post lake of fire setting?

Roofus,

I think I can fairly say that they at least overlap (since after all it isn’t like we’re supposed to be NOT evangelizing until then. )

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere before, I grew up in a church setting where I heard two plausible arguments for this section of scripture:

1.) It must be taking place in the present, because there’s evangelism (and of course the situation is hopeless in the future so there couldn’t be evangelism);

2.) It must be taking place in the future, because there are various language cues showing it happens after the lake of fire judgment.

Both could easily be true. But if #2 is also true, then that has huge ramifications. (Which is the main reason why advocates for #1 are advocates for #1. )

Hi roofus,

I see it as a timeless invitation–now and always. The gates of the city never close, the water always flows, the light always shines, the servants of the Lord reign with Him (and to reign in God’s kingdom is to serve with Him in his work). And what will happen when the work is done? It says, “What we shall be has not yet been made known.” There is mystery ahead, of which we know nothing.

Sonia

I should add that my detailed notes on Rev 22 and its connections to Rev 21 (and 20 and 19), show how thematically connected all the parts are. This makes it very difficult to argue for an exclusive shift in focus from the future back to the present.

However, I would definitely agree that the final verses of Rev 22 are intended to be applied to any time of evangelism, which naturally includes today. (“For as long as it is called ‘Today’!” as the Hebraist puts it. But that’s a whole huge other ball of wax on which I’ve written extensively somewhere. )

So in short, Aaron, your viewpoint is unjustified because it relies on a cursory, superficial analysis of scripture with plenty of arbitrary interpretations read into it. The good news that you present is not the revolutionary good news that Jesus and the apostles presented. Instead it’s borrowed from ordinary pagan mythology and is a huge blasphemy of the love and justice of the all-wise eternal God. Don’t you think it’s high time to reconsider the message that you’re preaching, my good man?

Ahem… blasphemy charges there, Justin… Dial it back, please.

Also, I don’t think it can be fairly said that A37 is drawing his position from pagan mythology per se. (At worst, it’s from Jewish mythology. For this argument anyway–maybe he’s appealing to pagan mythology in other threads, but if so I’ve yet to see him doing it.)

Thanks Jason. I don’t see how the ordained OT feasts being a foreshadow of the redemption of mankind being mythology( (Col 2:16-17), but Justin accusing me of pagan mythology is ridiculous.

Btw, I’m definitely not a Hebraist. I believe the OT is the NT concealed. The NT is the OT revealed! Col 2:16-17. There are many types and shadows throughout the OT that reveal NT truths.

Aaron,
Justin is referring to the fact that your argument is based on the Jewish traditions built up around the OT Feasts–instead of what scripture actually says about the feasts. Go check out scripture and tell us if you can find those meanings spelled out there.

Sonia

Jason

Rev 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. ^

Rev 21:25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

Notice Rev 21:24 says the nations which are saved. The nations of the saved walk in the light of the city. The kings bring glory and honor into it. Would not this reflect the nations, led by kings, that finish out the Millennium 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. Would not this explain why the gates are not shut for saved people on earth to be able to access the New Jerasulem?

God bless,
Aaron

Actually no, I was referring to the idea of eternal (or everlasting, rather) conscious torment being derived from pagan mythology. It’s for sure not in the NT, it’s not in the OT which barely referred to future ages let alone everlastingness, and as it’s been noted elsewhere on the forums recently even the Jewish rabbis didn’t believe this of Gehenna (it actually would’ve short-circuited their belief that God would be sovereignly victorious in the end and the nations would serve him!) I’ve read on Tentmaker that the idea is actually reminiscent of Zoroastrianism with its dual yet opposing gods.

Anyway, sorry about the blasphemy comment, Jason, I know it’s unnecessary. (I told you I’d comply where memory serves! )

Um…your not sorry or you would be apologizing to me, not Jason. Anyway, this is off topic.

–Post deleted for Aaron’s sake.

–Post deleted for Aaron’s sake.

Rev 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. ^

Rev 21:25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

Notice Rev 21:24 says the nations which are saved. The nations of the saved walk in the light of the city. The kings bring glory and honor into it. Would not this reflect the nations, led by kings, that finish out the Millennium 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. Would not this explain why the gates are not shut for saved people on earth to be able to access the New Jerasulem?

God bless,
Aaron

Actually, that’s not entirely a bad argument. At first I was thinking that it said that the redeemed will live in the city, but can’t find that reference now. I’m thinking I just implied it from a couple of different verses I just read over again.

My only objection is the parallel to Isaiah 60, which speaks of the godless nations having to bring a peace-offering to Jehovah, which at the very least paints the nations bringing their glory into Jerusalem in a neutral light.

Justin

where does it say godless nations?