Is Revelation 22:19 Addressed to the Unsaved in the Church?

J.C. Thibodaux


  In my previous article on Revelation 22, I addressed the most common objections that Calvinists and eternal securists raise to its literal interpretation. The following argument is actually a specific spin on Objection 1 written by Ra McLaughlin (you can see the original post at http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99899.qna/category/nt/page/questions/site/iiim. When a reader asked him about what that verse meant, he responded:

"I think the best way to understand this is to notice that the Bible sometimes speaks of people possessing a right to or an expectation of something that will never be fulfilled. For example, in Romans 9:1-5 Paul says that the Jewish people possess all sorts of blessings of salvation, and he also indicates that they have not and will not receive these blessings. His point is that because they are in covenant with God, they have the right and expectation to these things if they will only keep covenant. Since they do not keep covenant, however, they forfeit these rights. In the same way, we may have a "part" in eternal life not be [sic] being saved, but simply by being in covenant with God -- because being in covenant with God gives us a right to inherit the covenant blessings if we fulfill the covenant stipulations (i.e. being perfectly righteous). Now, we can't be righteous on our own, and we can only inherit the covenant blessings in Christ, but that doesn't change the fact that God promises to bless us if we can be perfect on our own. Because that offer exists, it can rightly be said that all who are in covenant with God (i.e. all who are in the visible church) have a "part" or "share" in salvation, even if they have never come to faith in Christ. Thus, those who are in the church but who are never saved lose their "part" or "share," which is their right to be saved if they keep covenant. But they do not lose their actual salvation, which they have never actually possessed."

Ouch. It hurts my occipital lobe just to read that kind of twaddle. Let's examine the key points of this argument carefully:

"In the same way, we may have a "part" in eternal life not be [sic] being saved, but simply by being in covenant with God -- because being in covenant with God gives us a right to inherit the covenant blessings if we fulfill the covenant stipulations (i.e. being perfectly righteous)."

I'm not sure exactly what covenant he's talking about here. While there are several covenants between God and man mentioned in the scriptures, there are only two covenants with the promise of eternal life involved:

1. The Old Covenant (the Law - see Romans 10:5)
2. The New Covenant (grace - Ephesians 2:8)

First off, this book was written to Christian Gentiles in Asia Minor, not Judaea. If John is indeed addressing his readers as people under a 'covenant,' it is an impossibly silly contingency to insist that he was referring only to Jews; leaving only the new covenant, which Ra apparently acknowledges by saying, "...we can only inherit the covenant blessings in Christ." The sign of the old covenant was ritual circumcision, and its power through keeping the law of Moses (which we are both agreed is impossible for a mortal man to fulfill perfectly). What is the sign of the new covenant? Calling oneself a Christian? Fellowshipping in church? Both wrong. The Mediator of the new covenant is Christ (Hebrews 12:24), its seal is the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:30), and the power of that covenant is through Christ's own blood.

"Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant..."

Hebrews 13:20


For this [is] My covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Romans 11:27


  No one is in covenant with God just by claiming to be or by being in a body of believers. If someone who does not repent and believe attends a church, he has no expectation of a part in God's kingdom in the estimation of God or the church. Since the new covenant is not based on us being totally righteous (as we all have already sinned), works righteousness is not a stipulation of the new covenant (indeed, it is heresy against it), and no one under the new covenant has even the expectation or hope of eternal life by being sinless. So Ra's quote: "...but that doesn't change the fact that God promises to bless us if we can be perfect on our own" is a solecism, for this concept was indeed integral to the old covenant, but is alien and contrary to the new.

  To sum it up: The author of the above article more or less makes this up as he goes along in a futile attempt to circumvent the warning given in Revelation 22:19 by asserting that those to whom this warning applies do not actually possess a share in the kingdom of God, but simply the hope and expectation of such because they are in covenant with God. But as can be clearly seen, the only covenant by which one can have any hope or expectation of eternal life is salvation through the blood of Christ, not just being part of a church body. I have a better theory as to what this passage means, and this is going to sound wild so bear with me:

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life [most texts say 'tree of life'], and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book."

Revelation 22:18-19


Maybe it means that if someone who has been redeemed turns his back on God and hates His word and tries to destroy it, that he will have broken the covenant and will be eternally damned. I know that might be hard to garner from the plain reading of that verse, but if you read it VERY closely, I believe you'll find that is the point it is trying to convey.


Closing Thoughts

In actuality, the doctrine of conditional salvation necessarily carries with it an idea along the lines of what Ra implied was possible: That men who are under the new covenant with God can break that covenant with Him, and hence fall from His grace. What he didn't recognize was that being under the new covenant with God is synonymous with being saved.

"He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?"

Hebrews 10:28-29



Bottom Line:


Your name :

Your e-mail :

Subject:



Copyright © 2007, InDeathorLife.org
The information on this page may not be reproduced or republished on another website, webpage or other printed media without express permission from the author of this site. Other material(s) referenced on this site are the property of their respective authors or copyright holders, and where applicable are used by permission. "Order, order. Do you kids wanna be like the real UN or do you just wanna squabble and waste time?" -Principal Skinner, The Simpsons