Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Revelation 22:18

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
    ... Also, I don't think it makes much sense for the Holy Spirit to be telling Jesus to come.
    Subjectively, what makes perfect sense to some might not make sense to others. For example, some might see this as the Spirit praying within us, the bride, the Church, eagerly awaiting the coming of the Lord Jesus, as John himself prays in in this very context (22,20): Amen, come, Lord Jesus.
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • #17
      Again, I'm still curious to know if you are aware of anyone in the history of the church who has read these words in the manner that you do?
      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

      Comment


      • #18
        What I mean is that you don't seem super willing to think about the true meaning of the words, Greek or otherwise. Just knowing the right words is only the first step. Any unbeliever can potentially do that much.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
          What I mean is that you don't seem super willing to think about the true meaning of the words, Greek or otherwise. Just knowing the right words is only the first step. Any unbeliever can potentially do that much.
          Where do you get the idea that I am not willing to look at the true meaning of the words??? That is rather insulting, don't you think?

          And 'the true meaning of the words', from where exactly do you derive this?
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • #20
            Again, I'm still curious to know if you are aware of anyone in the history of the church who has read these words in the manner that you do?
            I'm not aware of anyone in the history of the church who had an entirely firm grasp on Revelation. And I don't claim to have an entirely firm grasp on it yet. That is what I am still working on.

            For example, some might see this as the Spirit praying within us, the bride, the Church, eagerly awaiting the coming of the Lord Jesus, as John himself prays in in this very context (22,20): Amen, come, Lord Jesus.
            Revelation 22:17 NASB
            The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.


            Maybe I am unusual, but I've always naturally read this verse as the Spirit telling people to come and drink. Based on the Greek, I bet you could even translate the whole verse as one long sentence if you really wanted.

            The Spirit is primarily involved in evangelism. The bride is primarily involved in prayer. If your view were correct, I would expect to see the reference to the Spirit either not present, or present after the bride ("The bride and the Spirit"). Finally, given that the bride is specifically referred to in the visions as already being in heaven with Jesus, it doesn't make logical sense for the bride to be instructing Jesus to come. (The proper command would be something more like, "Go.") In contrast, it makes sense that the Holy Spirit would be the primary one talking if it is speaking of getting people saved. The Spirit is described as getting people saved in John 3.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
              I'm not aware of anyone in the history of the church who had an entirely firm grasp on Revelation. And I don't claim to have an entirely firm grasp on it yet. That is what I am still working on.
              This is not a response to what I asked, thus I'm still curious to know if you are aware of anyone in the history of the church who has read these words in the manner that you do?
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                ... The Spirit is primarily involved in evangelism. The bride is primarily involved in prayer. If your view were correct, I would expect to see the reference to the Spirit either not present, or present after the bride ("The bride and the Spirit"). Finally, given that the bride is specifically referred to in the visions as already being in heaven with Jesus, it doesn't make logical sense for the bride to be instructing Jesus to come. (The proper command would be something more like, "Go.") In contrast, it makes sense that the Holy Spirit would be the primary one talking if it is speaking of getting people saved. The Spirit is described as getting people saved in John 3.
                It seems like you are using concepts that are external to the book of Revelation to interpret it. You should first try to show that these ideas are in fact present in the book itself. And before doing that, you should learn to read the book in the original language if you want to have the best chance of understanding it. By the way, the 'imperative' mood in Greek is not only used for commands.
                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • #23
                  If "come" means to come drink from the water of life, then the question arises what water is even at issue -- the water flowing from the throne of New Jerusalem. Then the question arises what New Jerusalem is being discussed. The question arises to whom or what the New Jerusalem refers. The question arises what its significance is. And especially at the time when Revelation was most likely written, the question would arise, well what about the physical Jerusalem and temple sacrifices? Who is the Lamb? So ultimately, the entire book would become fairly important to the proclamation of the gospel.

                  I'm not dogmatic about my view. I am open to critiques. And I'm open to considering anything that seems better. But I do consider the text-tampering viewpoint fairly ridiculous (for the reasons discussed already). Likewise, the idea that this verse applies to the whole Bible is false, except insofar as Revelation is a short recapitulation of much of the Bible.

                  Originally posted by Robrecht
                  It seems like you are using concepts that are external to the book of Revelation to interpret it.
                  Exactly. I believe that if you want to understand Revelation, you first have to understand the rest of the Bible.

                  Revelation 1:1 says that Jesus "signified" the message to John. It isn't a particularly literal book.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Honestly, here is another interpretation I would consider:

                    Revelation 22:7 NASB
                    “And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of this book.”

                    Revelation 22:14 NASB
                    Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.


                    Assume that the blessing of verse 7 which refers to keeping the words of the book, is linked with verse 14 which refers to washing your robe, which is linked with verse 19 which referencing the tree and the city. As such, verses 18-19 might be referring to obeying the commandments of Jesus contained in the book (especially the commandments to the seven churches). And washing robes may refer to the same thing as keeping commandments. This would also line up with Moses's use of the language. Taking away from the law meant failing to keep it. Adding to the law meant invoking God's name in vain to invent new rules.

                    However, I still like the first interpretation better, because it ties John ("I testify") to the people saying "Come" in the immediately preceding verse. And it ties the three references to people that "heareth" together as well.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                      Exactly. I believe that if you want to understand Revelation, you first have to understand the rest of the Bible.
                      Genau umgekehrt. You should first try to understand how this author is using language. For example, you want to use the idea that the Spirit is primarily involved in evangelization to understand this passage. But is that how this author understands the role of the Spirit in this book? You should try to make this case first before inserting your own ideas. If you look at Rev 2,7, eg, you will see that John says, he who has ears, let him hear what the Spirit is saying to the churchs. This is not evangelization of outsiders but prophetic correction of the Church. Look at the usage of this writer first and try to understand what he is saying.
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Robrecht
                        But look at Rev 2,7,eg, you will see that John says, he who has ears, let him hear what the Spirit is saying to the churchs. This is not evangelization of outsiders but prophetic correction of the Church.
                        I don't disagree that the Spirit speaks to the churches. Did you think that I would? Just because I said that the Spirit evangelizes? Respectfully, every piece of your thinking seems incredibly rigid and inflexible. It seems like I can't even discuss things with you without you without your claiming that I didn't answer your questions clearly enough. Please read between the lines.

                        Revelation 22:17 clearly is not an example of the Spirit speaking to the churches. We are debating whether it is speaking to Jesus (through the church) or speaking to outsiders (in large part, also through the church).

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                          I don't disagree that the Spirit speaks to the churches. Did you think that I would? Just because I said that the Spirit evangelizes? Respectfully, every piece of your thinking seems incredibly rigid and inflexible. It seems like I can't even discuss things with you without you without your claiming that I didn't answer your questions clearly enough. Please read between the lines.

                          Revelation 22:17 clearly is not an example of the Spirit speaking to the churches. We are debating whether it is speaking to Jesus (through the church) or speaking to outsiders (in large part, also through the church).
                          Why do you feel a need to insult others, eg, I am being purposely dense, I'm not interested in the truth, my thinking is incredibly rigid and inflexible. Do you think these insults are likely to improve our ability to communicate?

                          My question was was designed to make you think about something important. If you avoid it instead of answering it, you are limiting the conversation between us, not me. I said initially and it is still true, I will not hold your negative characterizations against you. But are they really helping you?
                          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                            I don't disagree that the Spirit speaks to the churches. Did you think that I would? Just because I said that the Spirit evangelizes?
                            No, I was merely commenting on your use here of the idea that the Spirit is primarily involved in evangelism (rather than prayer) in order to support your interpretation of 22,18, challenging you to support the use of this idea here from the presence and use of this idea elsewhere in this book. That would be a better, more convincing way to try and make your case.
                            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I meant "primarily" in the sense that the Spirit does a great deal of the work for evangelism, whereas the church helps. The church does most of the work for prayer, whereas the Spirit only helps in prayer. I did not mean that evangelism is the Spirit's only job.

                              Regarding the larger point, it is clear from Revelation that the author is deeply familiar with the Bible as a whole (more so than most or even all Christians today). And it is clear that Revelation derives at least some of its symbols and terminology from elsewhere in the Bible. What I am proposing is similar, except that I am saying virtually all of it comes from elsewhere in the Bible. And generally speaking, any parts that don't come from elsewhere are usually defined within the book itself.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                                I meant "primarily" in the sense that the Spirit does a great deal of the work for evangelism, whereas the church helps. The church does most of the work for prayer, whereas the Spirit only helps in prayer. I did not mean that evangelism is the Spirit's only job.

                                Regarding the larger point, it is clear from Revelation that the author is deeply familiar with the Bible as a whole (more so than most or even all Christians today). And it is clear that Revelation derives at least some of its symbols and terminology from elsewhere in the Bible. What I am proposing is similar, except that I am saying virtually all of it comes from elsewhere in the Bible. And generally speaking, any parts that don't come from elsewhere are usually defined within the book itself.
                                Do you find your idea about the primary and secondary roles of the Spirit and the Church in evangelism and prayer reflected in the book of Revelation? Do you find it relected in other books of the Bible?

                                If so, where in Revelation and where else in the other books of the Bible?
                                Last edited by robrecht; 02-25-2014, 02:26 PM.
                                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X