Morphosyntax of Revelation 1:5

Greek (NA28): καὶ ἀπὸ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ μάρτυς, ὁ πιστός, ὁ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ ὁ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς. Τῷ ἀγαπῶντι ἡμᾶς καὶ λύσαντι ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ

The more I study so-called solecisms (anomalies), I find that the issue becomes increasingly complex: one should be careful before accusing a writer of using "bad grammar." Revelation 1:5 begins with another ostensible solecism: καὶ ἀπὸ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Scholars [point out] that this preposition usually takes the genitive case, which we see at the beginning of the verse, but then appear ὁ μάρτυς, ὁ πιστός, ὁ πρωτότοκος--all of which are nominatives and they're appositional with Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Compare Rev. 1:4 for another supposed solecism. In the final analysis, a number of writers attribute the grammar here to Hebraic conventions or Semitic "interference."

ὁ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ ὁ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς-Compare Colossians 1:18. Buist Fanning (Revelation, page 81) calls attention to the nominatives in apposition to genitive nouns here, which scholars commonly identify as solecisms. Fanning points out that τῶν νεκρῶν could be rendered "of the dead" but it's probably a partitive genitive, so should be translated "from the dead." Numerous MSS reflect this understanding of matters by adding the preposition ek ("from").

Fanning (Revelation, page 82) prefers "the ruler over the kings of the earth" rendering for ὁ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς. That seems like he favors a genitive of subordination for this construction although it is not the only translational choice that one could make. This latter expression, ὁ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς elucidates ὁ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν since καὶ is likely epexegetical--see Brian K. Blount, Revelation (NTL Series), page 33. Blount thinks John "skews the grammar" here in order to make a theological point.

Τῷ ἀγαπῶντι ἡμᾶς καὶ λύσαντι ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ-John begins this portion of Rev. 1:5 with a dative phrase that includes a present participle functioning substantivally which is then followed by an aorist participle that functions substantivally: the Lamb loves "us," but he loosed (past tense) "us." See Fanning, Revelation, page 82.

λύσαντι is the preferred reading; it's an aorist active participle from λυω. Some MSS read λούσαντι instead, but λύσαντι seems better. Vincent's Word Studies relates this explanation:

Read λύσαντι loosed. Trench remarks on the variation of readings as having grown out of a play on the words λουτρόν, a bathing, and λύτρον a ransom, both of which express the central benefits which redound to us through the sacrifice and death of Christ. He refers to this play upon words as involved in the etymology of the name Apollo as given by Plato; viz., the washer (ὁ ἀπολούων) and the absolver (ὁ ἀπολύων) from all impurities. Either reading falls in with a beautiful circle of imagery.

ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ appears to be an instrumental use of the preposition. Compare Romans 3:25; 5:9; 1 Corinthians 11:25; Hebrews 10:19; 1 John 5:6; Revelation 5:9; 7:14.

Cambridge Bible: The balance of evidence is in favour of the reading “loosed us:” the preposition “in” might easily, in a Hebraistic book like this, be used of an instrument, where we should say “by,” or “with.” So we should probably render “redeemed us from our sins by His own Blood”—the Blood of Christ being conceived as the price of our redemption, as in 1 Peter 1:18-19—not, as in Revelation 7:14, Revelation 22:14 (according to the preferable reading), and perhaps in St John’s 1 John 1:7, as the cleansing fountain foretold in Zechariah 13:1.