Saturday, January 22, 2022

Revelation 11:1 and the Temple of God

Greek: Καὶ ἐδόθη μοι κάλαμος ὅμοιος ῥάβδῳ, λέγων Ἔγειρε καὶ μέτρησον τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας ἐν αὐτῷ.

Analysis: ἐδόθη is aorist indicative passive 3rd person singular of  δίδωμι (compare Revelation 6:4, 8, 11; 11:2; 13:5-7); the comments made by Grant Osborne are worth consulting in his work Revelation, BENTC.

The noun κάλαμος ("a reed, measuring rod") is nominative singular masculine. See Ezekiel 40:3b, 5 (LXX): "It was about ten feet four inches in length" (Osborne). Cf. Revelation 21:15.

The reed is
ὅμοιος ῥάβδῳ ("like a staff"). λέγων is the present active participle, nominative masculine singular of λέγω : the participle applies to the angel being used in the revelatory disclosure (see Revelation 10:11). Aune observes that the antecedent of the participle is not clear but the angel is the most likely candidate.

William Webster and William Francis Wilkinson think the accusatival noun phrase τὸν ναὸν signifies the Christian ecclesia (see 2 Thessalonians 2:4). They submit that τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας applies to the "true and spiritual Christians, real Christians" (The Greek Testament, page 795).

Period of Application: John is bidden to measure the temple of God and the altar and the ones worshiping in the temple sanctuary. If Revelation was written circa 96 CE (the so-called late date for the book), then the temple in Jerusalem would have been destroyed at the time of writing. This raises a question about how the words of Revelation 11:1 might apply and when.

Some writers argue that John wrote Revelation circa 68-69 CE right before the Jerusalem temple's destruction in 70 CE. If that were the case, how would Revelation 11:1 then undergo fulfillment? Preterists contend that the temple of God in this account refers to the Second Temple built in Jerusalem or Herod's temple. Hence, they insist that Revelation 11:1-2 underwent fulfillment before 70 CE when there still was a Jewish temple standing in Jerusalem or during that fateful year.

The difficulties with preterism and Revelation 11 have been addressed in other studies, and the objections set forth by scholars seem fatal to preterism in my opinion. This account simply does not refer to the temple in Jerusalem.

Stephen S. Smalley approaches Revelation, not with a preterist template, but with a "modified idealist" hermeneutic instead. This means that he understands the temple of Revelation 11:1 to be symbolic:

"The temple, worshippers and altar of verse 1 must signify the Christian community and its faithful members; just as the concept of ‘measuring’ symbolizes the preservation of the servants of God who have been sealed from danger of every kind. The outer court and holy city then represent the Church in its vulnerability. Its adherents, the Johannine circle included, remain subject to physical oppression from imperial and Jewish sources, and to the possibility of martyrdom (2.13; 6.10–11; 20.4).

See Smalley, Revelation to John, page 270.


Other Scholarly Observations:


Ernst W. Hengstenberg (Revelation):
"The church appears under the symbol of the temple, which for so many centuries was the seat and external representation of the kingdom of God, and hence occurs, otherwise than in vision, in a series of passages in the New Testament as the designation of the church, John 2:19; Mark 14:58; Ephesians 2:21-22; Tim. Revelation 3:15; 2 Corinthians 6:16; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; Hebrews 3:6. The temple proper denotes those, who are deeply filled and penetrated by the spirit of the church, the outer court those, who are only superficially affected"

Craig R. Koester (Revelation, page 495):


8 comments:

  1. Foster, I think that you should provide a disclosure that at a JW you are not permitted to disagree with any of the teachings of your sect. Thus, any of your theological ponderings are, more honestly, simply apologetics for dogma, dressed up as scholarship.

    If I'm mistaken on this point, have any of your posts ever done anything other than make the case for your cult's views?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Firstly, I don't hide the fact that I'm a Witness of Jehovah anymore than a Catholic theologian hides what he is. However, I take being a scholar seriously and see no genuine conflict between defending my faith and the Bible. That does not mean one turns off his/her brain.

    I just did a post about Revelation 7:9 that has nothing to do with upholding any particular dogma and I've done book reviews, series on exegesis and pieces about church history.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Catholic partisanship doesn't justify JW partisanship, does it?

    So to be clear, you have never, in all your studies ever found anything in the scriptures that disagrees with the (current) teachings of the JWs?

    You wrote:

    I take being a scholar seriously and see no genuine conflict between defending my faith and the Bible. That does not mean one turns off his/her brain.

    No, but it does better describe your true mission (defending the JW religion) than does "scholar." IE: Being honest, isn't it true that you will never write a single post on this site that does not align perfectly with the dogma of the "Governing Body"? I mean, isn't that the way the JW religion is structured? Truth reaches earth through the GB and everyone else must agree or be shunned?


    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't see what I'm doing as being a partisan. The GNT tells us to defend the faith that was given once for all time. You might disagree, but I believe JWs constitute the true Christian ecclesia. So, if they have the truth, why go against if one belongs to the religion?

    Things are not quite as you represent them above, but if there is a question that I have about what the Governing Body teaches, we have constructive ways to handle the situation. Furthermore, I made this site to communicate ideas, share scholarship, and upbuild my brothers knot tear down their faith. If other churches took your view of matters, there would be no evangelical or Trinitarian scholars. They would all be "apologists."

    Murray J. Harris and Richard Bauckham are staunch trinitarians, but I also comsider them to be scholars. I will also stand by what I perceive to be truth.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, now your cards are on the table.

    ReplyDelete
  6. They've been on the table. I have not hid what I am. 😀

    ReplyDelete
  7. @E.Foster " have any of your post done anything other than defend your cult's position?"
    This from someone who likely believes that he will be tortured eternally if he dares to think other than what his "cult" prescribes if I had to choose between being left alone by people I considered mentally and morally inferior and eternal conscious torment(let's not forget that our enemies have shown that they are not below inflicting physical torture on those who dare dissent from them see the situation in Russia) I know what my choice will be.
    And we are supposed to believe that Mr.ego doesn't have a partisan bone in his body.


    ReplyDelete
  8. I guess "Mr. ego" feels that he's not beholden to any group, so he can think for himself. I have no ill will against him, but we've known each other for a long time and not much has changed. He obviously feels the same about me, but no worries.

    At the end of the day, as Paul said, we all obey someone. It is just a matter of who we obey.

    ReplyDelete