Actually, the point really is that nothing is revealed in 22:6. After 22:6 John falls down to worship the angel, and the angel stops him. It is what preceded that cause what is stated in 22:7 to take place, which in turn caused 22:8 to take place, etc. They are all tied in closely. 22:14-15 actually has a nice bit of revealing in it though, since you ask. It is actually quite fitting that the same one who identified himself as the A&W in the beginning of Revelation (1:8) would also come back to put his seal of approval on it in 22 (12-13).
New World Translation Brackets!!
by gold_morning 137 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
AuldSoul
Mondo1,
Is there some reason you keep typing a "W" for Omega?
John specifically states when he falls down to worship is after he has seen and heard "these things" that the angel has been showing and telling him.
He falls down before the angel, but not just in response to 22:6, 7. In response to 1:10 (when he begins hearing the revelation from the angel) through 22:7 (when he stops hearing the revelation from the angel).
The angel's last comment is not as a result of more to reveal. The angel has already revealed that the appointed time is near any number of ways during the course of the revelation. In Revelation 7 it was made clear what would be the fate of those who wash their robes. That those who hear what the spirit says to the congregations would eat of the tree of life in the paradise of God is revealed by chapter 2. Chapters 18-21 make clear what sorts of people won't eat of the fruit. So, I don't see where Revelation 22:14, 15 reveals anything.
Speaking of which, it is singular, xylon, in the Greek in 22:2 and 22:14. However, for doctrinal convenience it was changed to the plural form. According to which mistranslation, Jesus should have died nailed to trees.
Interesting question for you arises here: Where would the First Century Christians be when they eat of the tree of life? Heaven? Would that include the First Century Ephesians, to whom Revelation 2:1-7 is specifically addressed?
See, they need more than one tree of life so they can account for the one the Ephesian's will eat from being in
the paradise of God (Revelation 2:7)heaven and the one the rest of mankind who wasn't anointed will eat from that will be locatedon earthin the paradise of God (no Scripture exists to directly support this, sorry). -
Mondo1
An omega looks like a w and if you're typing out a Greek word you use a w for omega, so I use w.
I think you're missing the point that I'm making. The final revelation of events was given in verse 5. Verse 6 presents the angel speaking those words, then John interjects his own comments in verse 6 and tells what he did, then the angel responds to his action. The basic point that I am making still remains in that John shows that it is not longer the angel speak, and also then, there is no longer a revelation of events taking place (per your argument), by the use of I-proper name.
For verses 14-15, it reveals who will be allowed to enter and who will not be. That is a revelation in itself. The fact that it is stated earlier does not change this point, for it is common for things to be repeated within this book.
-
AuldSoul
Mondo1: The fact that it is stated earlier does not change this point, for it is common for things to be repeated within this book.
Well, at least it is certainly common to interpret the book as though things are commonly repeated throughout it. You have read the book before, haven't you? I mean, without any external guides for your thoughts as to the interpretive meaning?
-
AuldSoul
Mondo1,
An interjection of narrative commentary would between comments/actions of the one speaking. John did not here interject his commentary, the angel was finished with what he had to say. John's commentary and action was not thrown in amongst other things, it was pursuant to the end of the angel's showing and telling. The angel had been showing and telling John these things. This plainly shows the activity of showing and telling ceased prior to what you call an interjection, whatever your opinion of 22:14, 15.
The same is true when the construct is used in chapter 1. And in chapter 22, when Jesus uses that construct, it is also not an interjection. Maybe you should read what "interjection" means.
I have asked repeatedly, where is your substantiation (outside your own opinion) if there is any, for your understanding that this construction indicates a "change of speaker?" If you have none, outside your own opinion, please simply say so.
-
Mondo1
Auldsoul,
John here comments on what he himself did, showing that he was the one now commenting by the use of the personal pronoun with a proper name. You are twisting and turning in a vain effort to get away from the most basic point that is seen without dispute. John in both texts uses "I, John" to show that he is now adding his own comments, meaning that the speaker was not the one who was just speaking, but now it was John. In these texts we see John addressing his audience.
My position is substantiated because it can be demonstrated. Unless you are willing to argue that Revelation 1:8 and 22:7 are John speaking, the fact for which I argue is beyond dispute.
There is no reason to reject the idea of such a speaker change in verse 22. In fact, in realizing that Revelation 22:12 is an allusion to a text about the Father from Isaiah 40:10, it becomes even more unlikely that the text is speaking of the Father, not the Son. Factor this in to Revelation 21 where the Father is again seen to be the A&W, and the evidence continues to grow.
Mondo
-
UnDisfellowshipped
I haven't read this entire thread (I don't have that much free time), but I have read a few pages of it.
I just wanted to comment in regard to who was speaking in Revelation 22:12-13, which reads:
Revelation 22:12-13 (NKJV): “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”
Throughout Revelation, the majority of times that the phrase "I am coming" or "I am coming quickly" occur, it is Jesus Christ speaking. Jesus said "I am coming quickly" in Revelation 3:11, and most importantly to this discussion, Jesus also says the exact phrase used in Revelation 22:12, "I am coming quickly," in Revelation 22:20, where Jesus said this:
"He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming quickly.” Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!"
So Revelation 22:20 says that "He who testifies to these things says...". That shows (at least it shows to me) that Jesus Christ is the One who has been speaking and testifying from Revelation 22:12 onward, especially since Jesus in Revelation 22:20 says the exact same thing that the speaker in Revelation 22:12 says -- "I am coming quickly." Also consider that Jesus said that He was the One speaking in Revelation 22:16.
Not only that, but previously in the Book of Revelation, the ONLY Person who said "I am the First and the Last" was Jesus Christ (who said this at least twice, and a third time if the King James Version is correct on this), and NOT The Father.
So, if you claim that The Father is speaking in Revelation 22:13, then that means one of two things:
1:) If you believe that The Father is a totally different Being than Jesus, then Revelation teaches that there are two different Firsts and two different Lasts. Does that make any sense?
2:) If you believe that The Father and Jesus are One Being and One in Nature, then there would be no contradiction and no problem, because that would mean The Father and The Son are the ONE First and the ONE Last.
However, based on what I wrote above, I believe and am convinced that Jesus Christ is the speaker at Revelation 22:12-13, and I even believe He may have been the speaker in Revelation 1:8.
And, even if Mondo1 is somehow correct, and it is The Father speaking in Revelation 22:12-13, that still does not change the fact that Revelation takes the Divine Title of "The First and The Last" (from Isaiah where it applied only to Jehovah God) and applies it directly to Jesus Christ at least twice, if not 3 or 4 times.
-
AuldSoul
Mondo1: There is no reason to reject the idea of such a speaker change in verse 22.
There is no reason to assert that the construction we were debating indicates speaker change. I didn't insist that the speaker didn't change, I insisted that the construct to which you directed attention does not indicate speaker change. Perspective changed from one person to another dozens of times throughout Revelation and within the text of the revelation itself John never once uses that construct to indicate what you say it indicates. He used simple common expressions like "And I [action]" or "Then I [action]" or "And they [action]" etc. except in two instances when narratively testifying about himself and once when quoting someone else giving a testimony about himself. And it is in exactly that context where this construction appears in other contemporary writings, including those attributed to Paul.
Just because the "speaker" (actually, narrative focus) changed twice when that construction was used does not mean this change is what that construction indicates, no matter how often you claim it does.
Especially since the construction has an historical usage for that time period which fits perfectly well with the text under consideration; a usage for which the construction is also used in English, down to this day, and which is found in many languages and cultures long prior to the writing of the revelation.
Can you demonstrate why the historical usage of that construction should be excepted in this specific case in favor of an intent non-existent in other writings of the period?