It does certainly seem like there’s a widely applicable story that can be drawn out of John’s vision.

However, (and I realize that this is not what you’re saying) I doubt its original readers read it as (merely) some sort of nice universal story, or even a very powerful story. For it to make any sense (and to do justice to the genre), I think it had to be immediately applicable and understandable (and of course, this complicates a reading of the text for those of us who no longer share the context).

Don’t worry, I won’t make you read Left Behind. :-)

As far as the human ‘no’ is concerned, varying intuitions here will lead to different conclusions. If one feels (as I tend to) that humans are (or at least can be) some of the most obstinate creatures on Earth, then ‘eternal’ separation/exclusion from a fully-consumated Kingdom seems possible. If one is more optimistic about the human capacity for change, then perhaps God will win everyone over—but it would be a wooing, and not a coercing, of course.

A lot here hinges on our view of the new creation. In my view, the ability to reject God requires a sort of ontological separation from him—it assumes the separation of heaven and earth. But when heaven and earth are united in the new Jerusalem, where do people who want out go?

Random thoughts on a Friday evening. Have a wonderful week-end!