J. Massyngberde Ford (Anchor Bible Commentary on Revelation) brings a couple of interesting issues to the table.
Ford thinks that the phrase καὶ τοῦ Ἀρνίου is "suspect" and she notes that "some [textual?] critics see it as an insertion" (page 362). Furthermore, the claim is made that καὶ τοῦ Ἀρνίου is "awkward in the context" and conflicts with οἱ δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ λατρεύσουσιν (I am using Ford's 1975 commentary).
Personally, I do not think that we need to exclude the phrase to make sense of the passage, but just what do the textual critics specifically observe?
David Aune (Revelation 17-22, page 1242) reckons that the mention of the Lamb in 22:1 reflects an "expansion" of a previous apocalyptic text, but he feels it's possible that Psalm 110:1; Revelation 3:21 background and influence the current lectio. Concerning Rev. 22:3, Aune writes:
This phrase is somewhat redundant since “the throne of God and of the Lamb” has already been mentioned as the source of the river of the water of life in 22:1. The future indicative ἔσται, “will be,” reflects the prophetic tenor of the passage. As in v 1, the phrase “and of the Lamb” is probably a later gloss.Aune, Dr. David. Revelation 17-22, Volume 52C (Word Biblical Commentary) (p. 1242). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Ford observes that God (not Christ) must be the antecedent of αὐτῷ in Rev. 22:3. She points out that Rev. 22:4 speaks of God's face and God's name (καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τῶν μετώπων αὐτῶν). Rev 22:5 also tells us the following: ὅτι Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς φωτίσει ἐπ’ αὐτούς. In other words, the context of Rev. 22:3 strongly indicates that God (the Father or YHWH) is being discussed and made prominent in this context, not the Lamb. As we can see by examining Aune above, he concurs with Ford in viewing Rev. 22:1-3 as "suspect" or not original.
Ford concludes her remarks pertaining to Rev. 22:3 this way:
"One would expect the third person plural instead of singular if the Lamb was originally part of the text. Rev 22:3-4, therefore, should probably read, 'and the throne of God will be in her (the city) and His servants will worship Him . . ."
So much for the assertion that the third person singular pronoun must refer to God and the Lamb "as a unit." Ford contends that if John meant to include the Lamb in this text, he would probably have employed the third person plural verb instead of the singular form. However one views this debate, at least this shows another possible way of understanding Rev. 22:3.
10 comments:
https://biblequery.org/revmss.html
Unless I missed them on that page, I did not see a variant reading for Rev. 22:1 or 22:3.
That's seems correct. So I suppose we have to go with the evidence in hand. Anything else is speculation & I am not sure why any scholar would even go their. They would certainly need a considerable level of circumstantial evidence to contradict the wording.
A lot of the questioning about Rev. 22:1 and 22:3 has to do with the singular reference/pronominal within the context of John writing about God's throne and the Lamb's throne. Ford and Aune could be wrong about "and of the Lamb" being added, but regardless, I think one can still apply the singular pronoun to God without reading Trinitarian meanings into it.
And I agree that as things stand, I see little need to question the current text.
Rev 5:5 explicitly explains the origins of the lamb.
John Gill applies Rev. 5:5 to Christ's "human nature," not to his divine nature. He writes that Christ "is David's son and offspring, according to his human nature," but "that he is David's Lord, according to his divine nature"
He seems to take the lion of Judah language as applicable to the human nature of Chriust rather than to his "divine nature."
Isaiah 11:2.
The spirit rests upon the human - is that a divine nature?
Isaiah 66:1 - 1 Corinthians 15:24,25 - this is all earthly and to the ancients a god throne could have a man sitting on it or also have it empty. - Exodus 25:17
I've found that devout trinitarians read the Bible through an incarnatio Christi template. They believe that the man Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ) was a person whose divine nature was united hypostatically with his divine nature such that he was truly God and truly human. Hence, they apply certain properties to his divine nature while apply other properties to his human nature. So the spirit rested upon the person whom they call the God-man. In Revelation, they see the risen Christ as still God and human whereas Jehovah's Witnesses understand the Jesus of Revelation to be a divine being but no longer human. In any event, they try to explain a lot by appealing to the Incarnation.
Chalcedonian Creed (451 A.D.):
“…the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyophysitism
Yep, that is one of the creeds that drives christologies in the churches of Christendom. See also the so-called Athanasian creed.
Post a Comment