Ethnic considerations

Doug Wilson & Joe Boot In A Conversation Seek To Condemn The Anti-Egalitarian Right

Doug Wilson – “What is happening with a lot on what I call on the ‘Dank Right’ these days is – which is an over-reaction to the egalitarianism and the globalization / homogenization of all ethnicity on the one hand, people have reacted the other way but what they’re doing is talking about ethnicity all the time like this is the only thing. But the Bible is much more wise than that. Jesus says you can’t be His disciple unless you hate Father, Mother, Wife, Brother, Sister. You’ve got to hate them. Now Matthew says ‘love more than me,’ so that tells you what’s going on there.”

Joe Boot – “There’s also the incident where Jesus is teaching and He’s barely had time to eat and – I love it, I think it’s there in Luke or is it Mark 4, somewhere in there, where they think Jesus has lost His mind and they’re final solution is ‘tell His Mom.’ finally His Mom and Brothers show up and they (the crowd) says ‘Your Mother and Brothers are calling you,’ and He says ‘my Mother, my Sister, my Brother are those who do the will of God.’ That whole idea of the only totalizing concept that the Bible recognizes is that relativizes all other loves is the Kingdom of God.”

Doug Wilson – “And you see , for example, hate Father, Mother, but if you surrender and die – basically if you mortify your earthly loves that way the resurrected, such that a man can love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for it or Jesus who said ‘Who is my Mother,’ is very solicitous for her from the cross … so it is not like we hate earthly loves. I am very grateful for my earthly loves but the Bible is very clear that only God’s requirements are total and if your beloved tries to entice you to idolatry in the OT, you have not pity. You have to say absolutely not.”

Joe Boot interviews Doug Wilson
Reformcon
“Ordo Amoris & the Gospel’s Answer to Ethnic Animosity.”

Bret responds,

1.) First, let us note that making an idol of your family, tribe, clan, nation or race is possible. Familioltry is a thing. However, can we honestly look at the current incarnation of the West and conclude that famililoltry is a problem? I mean, sure, I am confident that there may be some people out there among the pagan right who are making idols of their family, but let’s be honest and admit that we do not have a widespread problem in the Church today of people making an idol out of their family. On the other hand, to those like Doug Wilson and Joe Boot who seem to be brain dead that there is a very real agenda to snuff out the white man (replacement theory) there is instead the problem of not dealing effectively with the problem of egalitarianism. Like the Israel leadership of old Doug and Joe want to treat the problem of egalitarianism too lightly. The West is clearly in a house that is burning down around us in the flames of egalitarianism and the Boomer-cons want to go on a diatribe about the dangers of familoltry? Do these chaps know what time it is? Do they realize that total percentage of white people to non-white people has dropped precipitously in the past 50 years? Do they realize that globalism and the migration habits of the third world into Western countries is not an accident? Do they understand that by the definition of “genocide” as stated by the UN that white people are currently being genocided? These two Boomers complaining about the presence of familoltry in our current climate is like someone pointing out that a teenager has a zit all the while missing the fact that his leg has been shorn off.

2.) Doug, as a proponent of the effeminate soft left, argues that we on the “Dank Right” have overreacted. Well, that does tend to happen when genocide for white people is on the menu “effeminate Doug.” Sure, some people have probably over-reacted but, again, I would strenuously contend that people like Wilson and Boot (and White and Sandlin and Durbin etc.) are massively under-reacting. They are sleeping while Rome burns. One only has to know somewhat of the history of Rhodesia and South Africa to see where all this is headed across the West. Yet, here we find Joe and Doug screaming … “All is well; Don’t over-react.” Honestly, this lack of urgency by Joe and Doug looks all the world like C. S. Lewis’ Green Witch, in the novel “The Silver Chair” doing all they can to put the awakening Prince back to sleep so he won’t fight against his danger. Who died and left you King, Doug, to decide when complaining about wickedness becomes too much complaining?

3.) Doug then complains that people are talking too much about globalization, and homogenization. This is like complaining that a prisoner on the torture rack is complaining too much about the pain of the torture. Of course we are complaining a great deal Doug. After all, torture doesn’t feel good.

Also, on this score who says when complaining about being vanquished becomes too much complaining? Let’s keep in mind that the egalitarian New World Order is in the saddle and holds the whip hand. Wouldn’t you expect the ones who are being whipped to be complaining a great deal? If we want to throw off the New World Order we have to spend time complaining about the fact that is Satanic and against God’s social order.

4.) I’m sure that the Bible is much wiser than all of us … including you Doug. That’s kind of a Captain Obvious statement.

5.) Keep in mind Doug that when Jesus says that we have to hate our family in comparison to loving the Lord Jesus Christ that kind of language doesn’t work unless there was (is) the expectation that we would indeed love our family. Jesus takes the idea that would be most central in people’s minds (the naturalness of loving one’s family) and says “Love for the Lord Christ must be even above that.” So, Jesus, takes the most central love in creation and puts it in its place; second to love for the Lord Christ. We might say, in light of this teaching, that Jesus is saying Love God first and then love your family. No one on my side of the fence disagrees with this Doug. Nobody on my side of the fence is arguing that we must love our family above God. What we are arguing is that we must love our family above loving the Stranger and the Alien. This is the 5th commandment. This is I Timothy 5:8.

6.) Turning to Boot’s brilliance, we once again offer that we quite agree that love for God relativizes all other loves. However, that does not mean that love for God eliminates the Ordo Amoris. There will be times when love for those who are not family who do the will of God will trump love for family who does not do the will of God. Nobody denies that on my side of the fence. We are merely arguing that normatively we have a responsibility to our Mothers before other women not our Mothers… just as Jesus demonstrated on the Cross.

7.) When you compare the first paragraph from Doug with the last paragraph from Doug it is clear this chap is involved in classic “Double-speak.” He, as he so often does, wants it both ways. He is, once again, fence straddling. Clearly, when any of my family is trying to entice me to idolatry I am going to tell them to “hit the road.” Really, this looks a great deal like a straw-man argument on Wilson’s part.

Now, look, Doug Wilson complains about how much his opponents are talking about race but I could fill a small library with how much this man keeps returning to the race issue in order to gate-keep against the non-egalitarians. In point of fact, I would say that he and his groupies are the ones who can’t shut up about the subject in their attempt to foist a kinder and gentler egalitarianism on us.

From The Mailbag; What Is The End & Purpose of Kinism?

I had a good conversation with my wife yesterday about race, culture, and resisting the loss of distinctions. One of the things that came to my mind afterward is the “to what end?” question. In the USA we obviously have an historic culture that has been watered down over time, and now is under direct attack. What are the immediate and long-term aims/expectations of having the Church in the USA return to her historic positions on race, marriage, and national law?

Dr. Justin Baker
Head – Political Science Department
Androsloccin University

Dear Dr. Baker

Thank you for your correspondence.

Well, speaking only for myself, I would say that a return to her “historic positions on race, marriage, and national law” is only the penultimate concern. The ultimate concern is returning to her historic position on our undoubted catholic Christian faith. If that is what happens then the US historic position on race, marriage, and law take care of themselves. In other words our primary problems as a country is not our aberrant views on race, marriage, and national law but rather our primary problem is that we have rebelled against the God of the Bible and His Christ. It is because of that, that our social order is so twisted. The long term effect thus would be a social order harmony of interests.

My expectation would then be a return to a time where the US is predominantly a White Christian nation (88% of the nation was white when I was a boy). I would be good if we had those numbers again as combined with a return to the protestant non neo-Orthodox Christian faith. This would be glorifying to God.

As to the effect of that, well it would be a return to a stable social order so that white Christians are no longer headed towards a Rhodesia / South Africa existence. If we do not get off the arc we are currently on then we will see the truthfulness of the white replacement theory come to pass.

Coast to Coast Radio Interview With The Chaps @ “The Political Cesspool”

https://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/radio-show-hour-1-2025-05-17/

The Episcopal Church made headlines this week for refusing to resettle white Afrikaner refugees. Pastor Bret McAtee returns to the radio program to offer his response. How should Christians address the concept of white guilt? Pastor McAtee provides a decisive answer.

More Interaction With Mr. James Pelton On Christianity & Race I

I am interacting with Pelton here because the com boxes on X don’t allow for me to respond to him given the length of his responses. I don’t pay out cash to Twitter in order to be allowed more script space. Second, I am responding here because it has become clear that no matter what I say to Mr. Pelton he is just going to come back with more extended Gnostic type reasoning that, in his mind, overturns what I’ve said. To keep going back and forth with him yields to the law of diminishing returns. However, making our conversation public here may well help other people.

First, I really would encourage people to take a look here on Iron Ink where I have stored more than a few of the quotes from our theological fathers throughout Church history.

So Say We All … A Protest To Dr. Sproul 2.0’s Comments

What I am trying to say to Pelton is not unique to me. It has been the position of the Church in all times and in all places until about 1960 or so when the Post War and Civil Rights consensus began to take hold in the West. These two historical realities were themselves just the final flowering of the Enlightenment period, which itself find its roots back to the Renaissance and before that to the ancient pagan world and before that to the Garden of Eden.

I give the whole exchange with Pelton because I don’t want anybody accusing me of misrepresenting his view. Here they are in total.

Pelton writes,

“Desires may involve bodily impulses—hunger, sexual attraction, adrenaline—but the decision to sin is spiritual and volitional. Jesus had a body. He experienced hunger and attraction as a man (Hebrews 4:15), but He never sinned. That proves biology is not the cause of sin.”

BLMc responds,

In the previous post I did not say that biology was the cause of sin. I said that when desires and lusts occur the reality of our biology in those desires and lusts can’t be cast aside. So, I think we agree that biology alone is not the cause of sin. However, Scripture clearly teaches that our biology is far more influential then your Gnostic type reasoning is allowing for;

Rom 7:21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. Rom 7:22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, Rom 7:23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

1Co 9:26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; 1Co 9:27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.

2Co 4:7a But we have this treasure in earthen vessels

In terms of our Lord Christ, the fact that He did not have a sin nature surely means something in this whole discussion. Calvin touches on this in his commentary;

“Thus he (Jesus) not only really became a man, but he also assumed all the qualities of human nature. There is, however, a limitation added, without sin; for we must ever remember this difference between Christ’s feelings or affections and ours, that his feelings were always regulated according to the strict rule of justice, while ours flow from a turbid fountain, and always partake of the nature of their source, for they are turbulent and unbridled.”

Because our biological impulses are intertwined with a sin nature Jesus didn’t have they are far more influential than you are allowing for, as seen in the Scriptures I noted above.

Pelton writes,

To say “biology influences behavior” is not to say “biology causes sin.” Influence is not determinism.

BLMc responds,

As long as we agree with the passages I posted above (Rom. 7, I Cor. 9, II Cor. 4) we can move on from this.

Pelton writes;

Yes, God created nations and families. That’s good. But sin didn’t enter through creational order—it entered through Adam’s disobedience.

Bret responds,

And Adam was part of the creational order… right?

Pelton writes,

The Bible doesn’t say we sin because we’re in this or that biological group. It says we sin because we’re in Adam (Romans 5:12–19). Saying “grace restores nature” is true— Saying “grace blesses sin-influenced nature” is false.

Bret responds,

Yes, we sin because we are in Adam but that truth doesn’t negate the idea that patterns of sin can’t run in familial lines. For an overview of this idea see,

https://biblehub.com/topical/g/generational_patterns_of_sin.htm

And I wonder, could you please point out to me where I ever said, “grace blesses sin-influenced nature?” I have no idea where from where that is coming.

James Pelton writes,

Traducianism holds that the soul is inherited, not that sin is encoded in DNA. It means we inherit a spiritual nature, not a physical mutation. Even if genetics predispose someone to a temper, the moral choice to act in anger is sin. Otherwise, you’ve collapsed moral agency into determinism—which Scripture does not allow.

BLMc responds,

There you go again… divorcing the spiritual from the corporeal. That’s Gnostic James. Since man can resist the devil knowing he will flee we know that determinism isn’t true as you falsely accuse me of. However, the genetic predisposition proves my point as Scripture does in Romans 7, I Cor. 9. and II Cor. 4 as I posted above.

James Pelton writes,

You talk about Jesus being a “supernatural exception.” But that proves my point. If sin were genetic, God would have to stop the genetics for Jesus to be sinless. Instead, Scripture teaches that Jesus shared in our humanity (Hebrews 2:14) without sin. That shows sin is not transmitted through DNA.

Bret responds,

Have you never heard of generational sins James? This primer might help you out here. Give it a read. There is much more on the subject out there. As I said, this link is only a primer. It demonstrates again, that you are Gnostic.

https://biblehub.com/topical/g/generational_patterns_of_sin.htm

You keep referring to our Lord Jesus Christ but you do realize that he was born without a sin nature right? This means that like Adam, He had no predisposition to sin. That is not true of us James, since we do have a sin nature and since that sin nature is expresses itself as Paul states above.

I think, if I am reading you right James, that you would say “yes” to the question, “Was it possible for Jesus to sin?” On the other hand I would answer that question “no” since He was predestined not to sin and since He had no sin nature. On the other hand we have a sin nature and that “law of sin is in our members.”

You see, James, I am not Gnostic like you. I understand man is spiritual and corporeal. I also understand that man’s spirituality and corporeality are intertwined and can’t be divorced like you are doing. Man’s sin nature is coded in man genetically though that sin nature is not restricted to man’s genetics. When I receive my glorified body I will be the same me but without the encoded sin in my genetics and without the sin nature. It just strikes me James that without some understanding like what I am communicating you are left with Gnosticism…. you are left isolating and divorcing the corporeal from the spiritual realities that comprise man.

James Peloton writes,

I’m not denying the body or downplaying the goodness of creation. I’m simply affirming: •Sin is spiritual and moral •Salvation is spiritual transformation •Identity in Christ transcends but doesn’t erase earthly distinctions That is classic, biblical orthodoxy—not Gnosticism. “The body is for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.” — 1 Corinthians 6:13

BLMc responds,

Yes you are. Your most certainly are. I hope I have demonstrated that above. Sin is indeed spiritual and moral but that does not mean that it isn’t biological as well.

Rom 7:23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

Regeneration, is indeed, spiritual transformation, but that transformation doesn’t mean that we quit contending with and against sin in this life. Greed, lust, deceit, gluttony, sloth … we continue to war against these sins in this life and partly because our very real corporeality urges us in sinful directions. We await our full transformed bodies … our glorified bodies, where all these sinful bodily biological desires, as well as our sin nature, will be done. To deny what I’ve said is Gnostic James. It is a denial of our the sin that is part and parcel of our corporeality.

James Peloton writes,

I’m not dividing body and spirit. im distinguishing them, like Scripture does. Calvin also affirms that: •In Christ, we are spiritually equal •Our creational identity is not the source of sin •Grace doesn’t validate the fallen expressions of our nature, but heals them Calvin would never say different ethnic groups have lingering, God-ordained spiritual deficiencies that salvation “restores.”

BLMc responds;

Really… Calvin would never say that? Well, let’s go to the well and consider a wee bit what Calvin said on this subject;

“Regarding our eternal salvation, it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regarding policy, however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our, Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us….Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”

John Calvin (Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3)

“The inhabitants of Crete, of whom he speaks with such sharpness were undoubtedly very wicked. The Apostle, who is wont to reprove mildly those who deserved to be treated with extreme severity, would never have spoken so harshly of the Cretans, if he had not been moved by very strong reasons. What term more reproachful than these opprobrious epithets can be imagined; that they were “lazy, devoted to the belly, destitute of truth, evil beasts?” Nor are these vices charged against one or a few persons, but he condemns the whole nation.”

John Calvin (Commentary on Titus 1:12)

“Let us perceive that their are wicked nations; let us examine their vices in order to keep ourselves from (learning) them. The French, for example, are more corrupt in their attire than other nations. Why? Because they have always had the folly of having to dress the body now this way, or the neck now that way – there is no style they have not seen fit to try, and God has condemned them and had them in derision, because of this mad curiosity which they have always had. And it is more today than ever.

Thus it is true, that all the world must be completely corrupt, and everything topsy turvy now. Yet, be that as it may, we must still take note of the particular vices of the nations, so that we know how to keep ourselves from them.” John Calvin (Sermon on I Cor. 11:11-16)

“All are not created on equal terms … This God has testified, not only in the case of single individuals; He has also given a specimen of it in the whole posterity of Abraham, to make it plain that the future condition of each nation was entirely at His disposal.”

John Calvin (Institutes Vol. 3, ch. 21, section 5)

Now, I’m sure Jame you will insist that Calvin does not say what he is clearly saying here about this subject but that is par for the course for people who don’t want the greats saying what they say because it contradicts their errant views.

I’ll leave you with one more quote from a distinguished Reformed theologian of the 20th century who wrote on this subject;

“We would maintain that all the necessary chromosomes required for the later development of the various racial strains now extant were already present in the perfect seed within the body of the unfallen Adam, even though his body and his chromosomes too must also have been adversely affected later as the result of his sin.”

Francis Nigel Lee

James Peloton writes,

That’s not Reformed theology—it’s ethnonationalism in theological garb. “The nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light…” — Revelation 21:24 That doesn’t prove ethnic traits are spiritually significant in the new creation—it shows that the diversity of the nations is redeemed to glorify God.

BLMc responds,

But ethno-nationalism (a tautology if there ever was one) is what Reformed theology teaches. Doubt me? Purchase a copy of “Who Is My Neighbor” and go to the Reformed / Presbyterian / Puritan section and see what all these chaps said in favor of ethno-nationalism. You just don’t know what you’re talking about James and you’re talking out of your hat.

If ethnic traits are not spiritually significant in the new creation then what are the nations doing there in their nations?

James, the nations are diverse precisely because they are diverse in their ethnic traits. Clearly, God delights in these diverse ethnic traits in the New Jerusalem because those traits remain as glorified.

Keep in mind James if Christianity does not teach ethno-nationalism the only option left is for it to teach either Gnosticism or some variant of Marxism, which has always pushed the same thing your pushing and that is the elimination of the ethnic distinctiveness of the nations.

James Peloton writes,

It (Revelation 21) doesn’t say “and their generational curses or weaknesses are retained and celebrated.”

BLMc responds,

I don’t know why you are repeating this canard — especially given the fact that I never said anything close to that. Clearly, as existing in the New Jerusalem the nations are glorified so that all generational curses and all sinful weaknesses removed.

James Peloton writes,

It actually more supports the point I am trying to make “Cultural Marxism” is about tearing down institutions and eliminating distinctions. I’m not doing that. I affirm God created us male and female, and made nations. But Scripture is clear: in Christ, we are one body (Eph. 2:14–16), and our old selves have died (Col. 3:3).

BLMc Responds,

Let me quote a distinguished Reformed theologian that remains alive;

“Scripture, as I read it, does not require societies, or even churches, to be integrated racially. Jews and Gentiles were brought together by God’s grace into one body. They were expected to love one another and to accept one another as brothers inthe faith. But the Jewish Christians continued to maintain a distinct culture, and house churches were not required to include members of both groups.”

John Frame,
“Racism, Sexism, Marxism”

Spiritually, we are one body but the creational distinctions remain James. This is seen even in the Church where because of the creational distinctions women are not allowed to rule over men. If they were spiritually one the way you are Gnostically trying to argue women would be allowed to rule over men. Creational distinctions remain James. Because of creational distinctions we celebrate the presence of Korean churches and Hmong churches in our midst. If creational distinctions disappeared once people are in Christ, as you suggest, then denominations would demand that these Korean, and Hmong churches be eliminated.

James Peloton writes,

That’s not Marxist—that’s gospel transformation. Ironically, saying that certain peoples carry unchangeable spiritual traits rooted in biology is much closer to Darwinian racial theory than biblical Christianity. Scripture teaches that all have sinned, all can be redeemed, and in Christ there is one new man (Eph. 2:15). Grace doesn’t reinforce fallen nature—it transforms it.

BLMc Responds,

Yeah … it is Cultural Marxism… though you can’t see it … yet.

And I don’t deny that God has people in every tribe, tongue and nation as in their tribes, tongues, and nations.

Oh… you accuse me of Darwinian racial theory. Allow me to accuse you of Boasian racial theory. Look him up. Probably one of the most influential men of the 20th century that very few have heard of.

McAtee And Pelton On The Subject Of Gnosticism

James Pelton writes,”

Sin is a moral, spiritual rebellion against God—not a biological condition.

“Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.”
— James 1:14, ESV

Bret responds,

And you’re saying desire is completely unrelated to our biology? When a man lusts for a woman is there nothing about biology in that?

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. Gen. 3:6

Are you saying there was no biology in those desires? Come on James … this is a sign that you are Gnostic.

You are divorcing things that cannot be divorced. They can be distinguished but not divorced.

James Pelton writes,

Can anger issues run in families? Yes—but that’s temperament or learned behavior, not guilt for sin. A quick temper might be genetic. But sinning in anger is a choice, not an inheritance.

Romans 5:12 says sin entered through Adam, and all die because all sinned—not because they got the “sin gene.”

Bret responds,

Certainly anger can be a learned behavior but it can also be a genetic trait and finally it can be both. Do you think everything is nurture holding that nature doesn’t exist? If you do that is Gnostic. Gnosticism eliminates the corporeal reality of existence and makes those realities unimportant. That’s what I see you doing by denying that creationally God has put us in particular peoples — with all their strengths and weaknesses. Those creational categories (nature) are restored (made what they were always intended to be in their best expression) by grace. Anger for example, can become resolve.

James Pelton writes,

Traducianism is the view that the soul is generated along with the body from the parents—not specially created by God at each conception. It explains how we inherit a sin nature, but not that sin is in our DNA.

Bret responds,

Was David’s lust for Bathsheba a lust that existed without cooperation from his DNA?

James Pelton writes

I would affirm:

-Sin is a spiritual problem
-We are responsible for our own sin
Genetics may influence behavior, but they don’t cause sin

Bret responds,

If genetics is influencing your behavior, then it is causal in sin. Now, of course our spiritual sin nature is moving our biological desires but one can’t say that genetics influence behavior and as the same time say it is not causal in the least.

You chaps want to make this vast divide between the spiritual and the corporeal. However, God made us as whole beings. Distinctions can be made but you chaps are divorcing the spiritual from the corporeal. That, James, is Gnostic like.

James Pelton really reaches,

Otherwise, you’d be saying Jesus would’ve inherited sin through Mary’s genetics—which Scripture and the early church reject.

Bret responds,

That would only be the case if one didn’t believe that God supernaturally worked so as Jesus did not inherit a sin nature. God, Scripture records, does the miraculous.

James Pelton writes,

When someone gets saved, they remain biologically male or female, Jew or Gentile, black or white. Your body and ethnicity don’t vanish.

But Scripture is clear that in Christ, those categories are no longer ultimate.

Bret responds,

There the Gnosticism is again.

Here is John Calvin on that subject;

John Calvin (Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3)

Are you a flighty scatterbrained dreamer James?

James Pelton wrote,

“You have put off the old self… and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. Here there is not Greek and Jew… but Christ is all, and in all.”
— Colossians 3:9–11, ESV

This isn’t Gnosticism, this is orthodox

Bret responds,

But the new self that is being put on is consistent with who God creationally made me to be. Grace restores nature James.

You are Cultural Marxist orthodox. You are not Biblically orthodox.

Rev. 21:22 But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23 The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine [l]in it, for the [m]glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light. 24 And the nations [n]of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor [o]into it.