Revelation 21 and 22

[dwilkins]

One of the things that I wish we'd had time to talk about in some detail at the debate is Steve's conception of the eternal state. I presume that it would be based on Revelation 21-22. Though I disagree, I will accept for the sake of argument that Isaiah 65-66 is not an accurate description of the initiation of the New Heavens and New Earth of Revelation, but that Revelation's version, being different from Isaiah's, is the actual New Heaven and New Earth of our future. In Revelation's version I don't see grounds for what I'm seeing more and more popular (based on "Surprised by Hope" and "Heaven", and which Steve has stated as his position) where there will be a perfect world that is fused in some way with heaven, and where people will live in and reign on this new planet for eternity. This is to be contrasted with the eternal state as living in heaven in the presence of God. I was hoping someone could flesh out this perfected world paradigm for me using Revelation 21-22 as the primary scripture to describe it.

Doug

[dwilkins]

The following is an example of the type of passage that I haven't seen a coherent explanation for if the future world is one of absolute perfection (remember, the entire universe had been melted and reassembled in order to have an absolutely perfect environment):

Revelation 21:22-27 (ESV)
22 And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb.
23 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.
24 By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it,
25 and its gates will never be shut by day—and there will be no night there.
26 They will bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations.
27 But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.

It seems to me that in this description of the New Jerusalem, which exists in the New Heaven and New Earth, there are still good guys and bad guys in some sense. I'd argue that the demonstrably bad guys (the unclean, detestable, liars, etc.) still exist in that world but are not allowed into the city. But, I've also seen it argued that those people are actually in Hell watching human existence in that new world. We'll get back to those obviously sinful people themselves later, but for the moment I'd rather focus on the open gates and what is being differentiated by them. It seems to me that the gates to the city are described as always open for people to enter and that the nations who are outside are being invited in. So, what are the conditions outside of the city? Why isn't the whole world simply inside of the city? If the whole world (or universe) is absolutely perfect, what is the point of differentiating between the city and the universe? It seems to me that the answer has to be that there is an environment outside of the city that is designed to be healed by the city (remember, the river of life is for the ongoing healing of the nations in chapter 22), which precludes the possibility that the universe at that point is absolutely perfect. It's not important for the moment to prove a position on whether these things are symbolic or literal. Using the language of the passage, I'm more interested in the contrast being made in the passage. How do the eternal perfected earth advocates explain their position on this?

Doug

[mattrose]

How do the eternal perfected earth advocates explain their position on this?

I'll jump in if only to get the conversation started (b/c I'd like to read the conversation!)

I don't know if I'm the right guy to start the conversation, though, since my views of this are fairly vague. I do believe God's goal is paradise restored... to dwell on a renewed earth with His creation. I believe that is what we are told to pray regularly (for the Kingdom of God to come to earth). I believe God's redemption ultimately redeems everything... far as the curse is found... and the curse is found on earths ground. This is all along the lines of the 2 books you mentioned by Wright and Alcorn.

On the other hand, I've also been influenced by Jerry Walls protestant version of purgatory. I don't think people (or even creation?) will be zapped with perfection instantaneously. I think God prefers to partner with creation and accomplish genuine perfection through the passage of time. I don't exactly know what this will look like, but I think Revelation 21-22 is a symbolic picture of this tension. I also believe in a hybrid form of hell (potential restoration for any repentant but eventual extinction for the non-repentant). So that would fit in there somewhere too (quite nicely, I think).

[Singalphile]

How do the eternal perfected earth advocates explain their position on this?

Like so (in my case):

If it were up to me, I'd end chapter 20 at chapter 21:8. That section is part of the same vision and is the chronological conclusion of it, I think.

Chapter 21 would then start with what is now Revelation 21:9. Rev 21:9 starts a new vision which is not chronologically after the preceding vision.

That is, the city of God, the new Jerusalem, exists now and we are a part of it, though it is not now in the new heaven and earth. So Revelation 21 is a spiritual or symbolic description of the church. To quote from "Revelation: Four Views":

"A helpful way of treating this segment [specifically Rev 21:22-27] is to look at it alongside an Old Testament passage with which it coincides. Compare the details point-by-point with Isaiah, chapter 60: ... Both passages then would appear to speak, albeit in symbolic terms, of the realities of the New Covenant age. The coming of the Gentiles into the church and the submission of kings to Christ has been in progress for nearly two thousand years now."
~ Revelation: Four Views, 1st ed., page 497, by Steve Gregg

The gates of the city (the Church) are open, but those who practice evil cannot be a part of it.

[dwilkins]

How do the eternal perfected earth advocates explain their position on this?

Like so (in my case):

If it were up to me, I'd end chapter 20 at chapter 21:8. That section is part of the same vision and is the chronological conclusion of it, I think.

Chapter 21 would then start with what is now Revelation 21:9. Rev 21:9 starts a new vision which is not chronologically after the preceding vision.

That is, the city of God, the new Jerusalem, exists now and we are a part of it, though it is not now in the new heaven and earth. So Revelation 21 is a spiritual or symbolic description of the church. To quote from "Revelation: Four Views":

"A helpful way of treating this segment [specifically Rev 21:22-27] is to look at it alongside an Old Testament passage with which it coincides. Compare the details point-by-point with Isaiah, chapter 60: ... Both passages then would appear to speak, albeit in symbolic terms, of the realities of the New Covenant age. The coming of the Gentiles into the church and the submission of kings to Christ has been in progress for nearly two thousand years now."
~ Revelation: Four Views, 1st ed., page 497, by Steve Gregg

The gates of the city (the Church) are open, but those who practice evil cannot be a part of it.

That's an interesting approach. I think I saw recently that Sam Frost is looking at it the same way in order to avoid Full Preterist implications. I think your problem is in verses 2 and 10:

Revelation 21:2 (ESV)
2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Revelation 21:10 (ESV)
10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God,

It seems obvious to me that the second verse is an introduction to a section trying to expand on the first one. That is John's pattern throughout the book (action, then an explanation of the characters).

Doug

[Singalphile]

That's an interesting approach. I think I saw recently that Sam Frost is looking at it the same way in order to avoid Full Preterist implications.

It would seem that most Christians now and throughout history have had no trouble avoiding Full Preterism. My opinion about Rev 20-22 was settled before it occurred to me that there might be Full Preterist implications.

I think your problem is in [Rev 21] verses 2 and 10: ... It seems obvious to me that the second verse is an introduction to a section trying to expand on the first one.

Yes, I agree with that. I just don't see why it's a problem.

[dwilkins]

That's an interesting approach. I think I saw recently that Sam Frost is looking at it the same way in order to avoid Full Preterist implications.

It would seem that most Christians now and throughout history have had no trouble avoiding Full Preterism. My opinion about Rev 20-22 was settled before it occurred to me that there might be Full Preterist implications.

I think your problem is in [Rev 21] verses 2 and 10: ... It seems obvious to me that the second verse is an introduction to a section trying to expand on the first one.

Yes, I agree with that. I just don't see why it's a problem.

I think it's a problem because if I understand your position correctly you are saying that the two sections refer to the function of the New Jerusalem at two radically different time periods (and possibly during two different periods of development). However, the later passage seems to be trying to describe the earlier one because it had just been mentioned. In other words, it doesn't seem to claim or imply that it is describing the New Jerusalem in a previous dispensation. Other than needing it to be so in order to fit it into a systematic interpretation I don't see anything in the passage that would indicate that the second half of the chapter should jump back in time at least 2,000 years.

Doug

[Singalphile]

Good afternoon. I hope you're getting some good stuff done today.

I think it's a problem because if I understand your position correctly you are saying that the two sections refer to the function of the New Jerusalem at two radically different time periods (and possibly during two different periods of development). However, the later passage seems to be trying to describe the earlier one because it had just been mentioned. In other words, it doesn't seem to claim or imply that it is describing the New Jerusalem in a previous dispensation. Other than needing it to be so in order to fit it into a systematic interpretation I don't see anything in the passage that would indicate that the second half of the chapter should jump back in time at least 2,000 years.

I'm not sure what you think I think. My general understanding of it is simple, I think. It would be as if I showed you a video of my wedding including scenes of my bride ("Sarah"), and then after the closing credits of that video, I said, "Now, let me tell you about Sarah, my bride," and I started another little video about her. The Sarah video would likely include something about her upbringing, her character, and how wonderful a wife she is.

So in John's revelation, all of us who are part of the church are the collective "bride"/"wife"/"holy city"/"new Jerusalem". His descriptions of the city/bride were true in his day and are true now and will be true forever. 21:10-27 does use various verb tenses - "It had a great and high wall," "has no need of the sun," and "its gates will never be closed." - but I'm not inclined to force that to mean anything in particular.

I won't say I understand it all correctly, but I do find it beautiful and inspiring and humbling.

[dwilkins]

I'm not trying to get you to force it to mean anything. I think it would be helpful if you engaged the function of the gates always being open, especially in the time of the New Heavens and New Earth, if there is no one left to save at that point according to your paradigm as I understand it. In addition, if you are right that the New Jerusalem throughout history is in view from 21:9 on, then the only verses in the Bible that describe the eternal state are Revelation 21:1-8. And, they say almost nothing about it. Or, are you saying that these two chapters jump back and forth between the final state and the church age?

Have you ever read James Jordan's book "Though New Eyes"?

http://www.amazon.com/Through-New-Eyes- ... h+new+eyes

Doug

[steve7150]

engaged the function of the gates always being open, especially in the time of the New Heavens and New Earth, if there is no one left to save








To me this is an allusion toward postmortem salvation since the unsaved are in the LOF. In Rev 22.2 "and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations" , so where there is healing needed there is disease and imperfection.