I'm starting to wonder why I'm even bothering.  Some people are going warp whatever to believe what they want.

Biblical Hermeneutics Quiz:

Do the Rev 21:24 "kings of the earth" correspond to A) Revelation 18 and 19 "kings of the earth" or B) Revelation 20 non-Church "saints"? Show your answer.

Helps:
http://www.revelationcommentary.org/21_chapter.html

the IVP Revelation Commentary on Chapter 21.

 

Some evangelicals are concerned with the problem that immature Christians and the lost will take hell lightly if we admit that Scriptures indicate the possibility of liberation from hell. And some people may think like that. This is analogous to some people deciding to murder only in states that do not have a death penalty. However, we can decrease the problem by emphasizing teaching that God gives extra punishment to those who purposefully abuse God's grace. Likewise, the unsaved dead suffer punishment in degree and duration according to their sinfulness. And nobody gets out of hell without genuinely repenting of their sins.

That's the only kind of UR that makes sense to me in terms of LFW.

THE DESTINY OF THE NATIONS IN REVELATION 21:1–22:5: A RECONSIDERATION
Dave Mathewson
Tyndale Bulletin 53.1 (2002) 121-142.

Some of it...

In summary, John’s inclusion of the ‘nations’ and ‘kings of the earth’ in eschatological salvation functions in such a way as to suggest that those who formerly worshipped the beast and opposed God’s kingdom now come to the New Jerusalem to give God glory.

The absolute transfer of sovereignty from the beast to God and the Lamb is accompanied by a corresponding shift in allegiance. The picture of the inclusion of the nations to become incorporated into the one people of God signifies the fulfilment of the Isaianic promise of a future conversion of the nations and restoration of Jerusalem as the centre of a universal Völkerwallfahrt (Is. 2:2–5; 60:3). Thus, in constructing his own vision of eschatological salvation, John combines the most universal strands of expectations of both judgement and salvation from the prophets in order to show their fulfilment in chapters 19–21.

Furthermore, the tension created by the universal vision of salvation in 21:1–22:5 with universal visions of judgement (cf. 19:17–21; 20:7–10) within the contours of John’s vision serves a rhetorical purpose of highlighting the comprehensive nature of God’s sovereignty in bringing about judgement and salvation. The antithetical portraits of judgement and salvation serve to present the opposite options that are available to the nations: punishment for those who refuse to repent; salvation for those who repent (cf. v. 27),without quantifying the outcome (it would be inappropriate to ask what percentage will fall under the category of judgement or salvation, or which will include more).

I'm telling ya...what we are saying should be STANDARD INTERPRETATION of the text!

Revelation: Kings of the Earth, The Nations, and the City of God

Some of it...

-------------------------

We then see that at the end, there is the City and there are those without.

I note that in the jubilant chapter 15, the nations are seen rather differently than the rest of the book:

And they were singing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb: “Great and marvelous are your works, O Lord God, the Almighty. Just and true are your ways, O King of the nations. Who will not fear you, Lord, and glorify your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship before you, for your righteous deeds have been revealed.” (15.3-4)

Several times in Scripture, we find the promise that all of humanity will bow to God; here we find that all will come to worship their King.

Here are some problems with focusing in on the names in the book of life to the exclusion of the fact that throughout Scripture the nations and the kings of the earth are opposed to God. If we interject so as to reconcile what is presented here – if we interject the notion that the nations and the kings of the earth who are entering into the city must be saved, we forget a few things.

First, these groups would had to have been saved at some point. When? They were all killed. Twice. Were they saved when then stood against Christ, killed the saints, worshiped idols, lied, and generally fornicated with Babylon without any account of repentance? Were they given a second chance? The Scripture says that Christ destroyed them with no mention of repentance.

Is it possible that when the Lord shouts that He is making everything new, John writes that the city will heal the nations, and that there is no longer a curse, it points to a time far, far distant in which we may take these things as literal?

My thought is this:

For no one can lay any foundation other than the one we already have– Jesus Christ. Anyone who builds on that foundation may use a variety of materials– gold, silver, jewels, wood, hay, or straw. But on the judgment day, fire will reveal what kind of work each builder has done. The fire will show if a person’s work has any value. If the work survives, that builder will receive a reward. But if the work is burned up, the builder will suffer great loss. The builder will be saved, but like someone barely escaping through a wall of flames. (1Co 3:11-15 NLT)

As Christians, we will get a reward, but we are told that those things which we build in our lives will be measured at the Judgment. All will be spared, but some will be burned. All will escape, but some barely. What if the same is applied to the rebellious who, as Daniel said, will wake to eternal sorrow for the things that they have done but will find medicine in the city as John said?

Tom: This is a big subject, and there's something to be said for what 'tradition' has become, but...as I see it 'Scripture' just IS 'tradition'.

Jeff: Scripture is not "merely" tradition. If we have any reason to believe the NT is reliably historical, for that same reason we have good reason to believe that both it and the OT were confirmed by signs and wonders. Indeed, Peter makes this very claim himself. Scriptures are only relevant to us because they are the written form of PROPHECY (hence the phrase "prophetic scriptures"). If the writers were lying about their signs and wonders and their confirming role, then we're dealing with deceit on too extreme of a level to take the rest of the NT seriously.

Tom: What we read when we read the NT just is "the tradition" (in the Pauline sense) of what constituted the shared faith and experience of the earliest believers.

Jeff: Scriptures are often apostles CORRECTING the other believers rather than discussing experience and beliefs they all shared.

Tom: Tradition, you might say, is MORE fundamental (historically speaking) than Scripture, for Scripture is just tradition distilled.

Jeff: More fundamental? Scripture is a subset of the superset of all traditions. But traditions contradict other traditions. So tradition QUA tradition has no value or authority. We need criteria for adjudication to separate the wheat from the chaff. So what do you mean by "distilled?"

Post Edited (Similitude) : 3/16/2012 10:00:12 PM (GMT-5)