|
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
A
R
Y
|
This verse contains two ambiguous uses of the third-person singular
pronoun, "His/Him." Does "Him" refer to God or
the Lamb? Is it possible that it refers to both? This issue
centers on the word "serve" (Greek: latreuô),
which has a technical sense in the New Testament of "sacred
service" rendered properly to God alone (see Grammatical Analysis,
below). Trinitarians have long argued that one of the most important
evidences that Jesus is the true God is that He is described as receiving
worship in the New Testament (e.g., Revelation 5:13).
Non-Trinitarians have argued that because there are no references to Jesus
receiving "sacred service" in the New Testament (but only, they
assert, the "lesser" form of worship or obeisance denoted by the
Greek verb proskyneo), Jesus actually does not receive the highest
form of worship reserved for God alone. Thus, they argue, He cannot
be God.
Clearly, the Non-Trinitarian objection may be disproved if it can be
demonstrated that "Him" in Revelation 22:3 refers either to the
Lamb or to both the Lamb and God.
Generally speaking, a pronoun will refer to the nearest noun that
precedes it. In this case, "the Lamb" is the nearest
preceding noun (or "antecedent"), and thus the Lamb would seem
to receive "sacred service." However, this general
rule does not always hold true. If context dictates, it is possible that
a prior noun may be the referent, particularly if that referent is
paramount in the writer's mind. Let's look at two examples in
Revelation which parallel 22:3 to see how context may serve to
"disambiguate" (remove the ambiguity) of the singular pronoun:
Blessed and holy are those who have part in the
first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will
be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a
thousand years (Revelation 20:6 NIV).
Does "him" refer to God or Christ? The nearest referent
is "Christ," but we have noted that proximity is not always
determinative. Context must resolve any ambiguity. Immediately
before, in verse 4, we read that the martyrs "reigned with Christ for
a thousand years." Thus, the most likely referent of
"him" is Christ. God, of course, is said to have
"begun to reign" on earth as well (11:17), but whenever the
"thousand years" are mentioned in Revelation, they refer
specifically to the period of time when Christ reigns on the earth over
His millennial kingdom. And whenever the saints are said to
"reign with" someone, it is always with Christ. The
context, then, in all likelihood, disambiguates the pronoun, making
"Christ" the probable referent.
The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there
were loud voices in heaven, which said: "The kingdom of the world has
become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign
for ever and ever" (Revelation 11:15 NIV).
The pronoun "he" (bolded above) does not occur in the
Greek. Instead, the verb rendered "will reign" (Greek: basileusei)
occurs in the third-person singular. But is the referent of the verb
"our Lord" or "his Christ?" The closest referent
is "Christ," in English. But in Greek, it is actually
"his:" christou autou kai basileusei (where autou
= "his"). But this fact cannot establish with certainty
that "he will reign" refers to "our Lord." The
elders fall down and worship God in the next verse, but this, too, is
ambiguous - does John use the noun "God" as an anaphora (a
reference back to "his," i.e., "our Lord") or as a new
subject, distinct from "Christ?" In verse 17, the elders
praise God, saying He "has begun to reign." This would
seem to tip the scales in favor of "our Lord" as the
referent. However, since the kingdom is attributed to both God and
Christ, it is certainly possible that both Christ and God may be said to
be reigning - Christ in verse 15 and God in verse 17. This sharing
of rule is evident throughout Revelation, where both God (11:17; 19:6) and
the saints alongside Christ (1:6; 5:10; 20:4, 6, 22:5)1
are said to reign; where God and the Lamb share one throne (22:1); and
where the Temple (21:22) and the light (21:23) of the Heavenly City are
said to be both God and the Lamb.
Thus, while it may be that John intends "he will reign" to
modify "our Lord," it is also quite possible that he intends it
to modify "Christ." Indeed, it may be possible to
understand him to intend both referents:
God shall reign, but the rule of God and of Christ is
one as the kingdom is one (Roberston).
He will reign with them in heaven to all eternity; for
though, at the end of these years, he shall deliver up the kingdom to
the Father, yet he will not cease to reign (Gill).
We may ask why, if John intended to refer to both referents, he did not
use the plural form of the verb "will reign?" In other
places, John consciously stretches grammar to make a theological
point. For example, in Revelation 1:4 (as well as 1:8 and 4:8), he
writes "Him who is, who was, and who is to come." In the
Greek, there are several grammatical oddities in this phrase.
Robertson notes of the first: "It is evidently
on purpose to call attention to the eternity and unchangeableness of
God" (RWP). Thus, it is
not impossible that John might use an ungrammatical singular reference
(either pronoun or verb form) for both God and Christ, to signify the
unity of the Two. When we see the many other ways the Two are
unified (in their reign, in the praise they receive, and in the future
devotion of the saints, for whom they will be Temple and Light), a
grammatical 'signal' seems at least possible. As Richard
Bauckham puts it:
Probably connected with this concern to include Jesus
in the monotheistic worship is a peculiar grammatical usage elsewhere in
Revelation, where mention of God and Christ together is followed by a
singular verb (11:15) or singular pronouns (22:3-4 and 6:17, where the
singular pronoun autou is the better reading). It is not
clear whether the singular in these cases refers to God alone or to God
and Christ together as a unity. John, who is very sensitive to the
theological implications of language and even prepared to defy grammar
for the sake of theology (cf. 1:4), may well intend the latter.
But in either case, he is evidently reluctant to speak of God and Christ
together as a plurality. He never makes them the subjects of a
plural verb or uses a plural pronoun to refer to them both. The
reason is surely clear: he places Christ on the divine side of the
distinction between God and creation, but he wishes to avoid ways of
speaking which sound to him polytheistic. The consistency of usage
shows that he has reflected carefully on the relation of Christology to
monotheism. It is significant that one of the passages in question
(22:3-4) concerns worship (Bauckham, The
Theology of the Book of Revelation, pp. 60-61).
In this example, the context has not removed the
ambiguity. If we must pick a single referent, it would probably be
"our Lord," but it must be admitted that ambiguity may be intended
in this verse, particularly if we posit that the author, John, is the same careful
writer as he who wrote the Gospel and the Epistles that bear this name.
Revelation 22:3-5 in the NIV reads:
No longer will there be any curse. The throne
of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve
him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their
foreheads. There will be no more night. They will not need the
light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them
light. And they will reign for ever and ever.
As mentioned above, the nearest antecedent to
"him" in verse 3 is "the Lamb," both in English and
in Greek. The context does not favor God over the Lamb as the
preferred referent. Verse 4 says that "they will see His face," but
both the Lamb and God are seated on the throne, so both of their faces
would be visible. It also says that "His name will be on their
foreheads." But we are told that both the name of God and the
name of the Lamb will be on their foreheads (Revelation 14:1). Verse 5 says that the
light of the "Lord God" will be their light, but we are told
that both God and the Lamb will be the source of light in the Heavenly City
(Revelation 21:23). Of all the passages we have considered, this one
seems the most consciously ambiguous in terms of who "him"
refers to. In fact, the only possible evidence that
"God" alone is the referent is the claim that "serve"
(Greek: latreuô) is nowhere else ascribed to Christ (see Other
Views Considered, below). But the meaning of "sacred
service" in the LXX denoted the cultic service offered to YHWH in the
Temple, and though this meaning became spiritualized in the New Testament
(e.g., Philippians 3:3), latreuô retains its original connotation in
Hebrews, where the service is specifically related to priestly worship
(e.g., Hebrews 8:2, 5). The same is true in Revelation, but here
both God and Christ are said to have priests (20:6). Thus, if Christ
has priests along with His Father, and receives the same praise and
worship the Father receives (5:13), it does not seem
unreasonable that latreuô would be offered to Him, just as it is
the Father.
And if the author of Revelation depicts Christ receiving the same
worship His Father receives, it seems likely that this practice derives
from John's own worship experience:
Although the author of revelation attributes these passages to the
figures seen in visions, it is reasonable to assume that their general
form and content may have been consonant with worship practices in the
churches known to him and that such materials are valuable indications
of the activities of these groups (Hurtado,
p. 101).
In conclusion, it seems probable that John intended, by a use of a
distinctive and intentional grammatical signal, to include God and the
Lamb as referents to "him" in Revelation 22:3. John has
demonstrated before (1:4) that he can stretch grammar for a theological
purpose, and there are other examples in the Apocalypse where he seems to
be doing the exact same thing(11:15; 20:6; and 6:17, if the majority
reading is correct). If so, Christ is shown to receive "sacred
service" alongside his Father, just as He does worship and praise
elsewhere (5:13):
and his servants shall serve him:
either the angels, who are ministering spirits, and the servants of God
and of the Lamb; or the ministers of the Gospel, the servants of the most
high God; or rather all the true followers of Christ, who shall be where
he is, and "serve him": both God and the Lamb, who are one in
nature, though two distinct persons; wherefore serving them both is not
serving two masters: and the service the saints will be employed in, in
this state, will not be preaching the word, or attending on the ministry
of it, or subjecting to ordinances, which will now be at an end, but
celebrating the praises of God, adoring the perfections of his nature,
ascribing the glory of every providence, and of all salvation to him, and
magnifying the riches of his grace; and this they will perform in the most
spiritual, fervent, and perfect manner, and that continually; see Rev 7:15
(Gill).
And:
That 'they will serve him' likely does not refer only to God or only to the Lamb. The
two are conceived so much as a unit that the singular pronoun can refer
to both... That both are sitting on only one throne and together
form one temple (21:22) enhances their perceived unity. Also, this unity is highlighted by
both having the titles 'Alpha and Omega' (1:8; 21:6; 22:13). Such
statements as these in 21:22 and 22:3 were
among those that gave rise to later Trinitarian formulas
(Beale, The New International
Greek Testament Commentary- The Book of Revelation [Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co. & Paternoster Press, 1999], p. 1113).
This fact is particularly striking, given the author's evident concern
to contrast the proper worship with false worship throughout his book.2
|
|
O
T
H
E
R
V
I
E
W
S
C
O
N
S
I
D
E
R
E
D
|
Jehovah's
Witnesses
objection:
Some Jehovah's Witness apologists3 have
argued that God is the referent of "him" in this verse, for the
following three reasons:
1.
"Him" is a singular pronoun and therefore must refer to either
God or the Lamb, but not both. If John had intended to refer to
both God and the Lamb, he would have used a plural pronoun.
2. If
the Lamb is offered "sacred service," God is not. It is
inconceivable that the Lamb would be offered this worship while His
Father is not.
3.
Nowhere else in Scripture is Jesus offered "sacred
service." Therefore, the most likely referent of
"him" in this verse is God.
Response:
It is not at all clear that had John wanted to refer to both God and the
Lamb, he would have used a plural pronoun or verb. The fact is that
he does neither anywhere in the book of Revelation. Instead, when
God and the Lamb form a complex subject, a singular verb or pronoun always
follows. As discussed in the Commentary, above, John elsewhere
stretches grammar to signal a theological truth (1:4). The fact that
there are several examples of singular verbs or pronouns following God and
Christ indicates that this is an intentional feature of John's writing,
and not an accidental introduction of ambiguity. If John is
consciously including both God and the Lamb in the singular pronoun
"him," the first two points of the Witness argument are not
sound.
Even if John intends to refer to a single noun, there are no contextual
reasons for eliminating Christ, the nearest antecedent. As for the
third Witness argument, it is true that the word latreuô is not
used in the New Testament to indicate the worship of Christ, but this is a
superficial argument, at best. The word latreuô originally
signified priestly service rendered to YHWH in the Temple, but in
Revelation, Christ is said to have priests (20:6) alongside His
Father. Revelation depicts Jesus sitting on the same throne as God
(22:1) and receiving the same praise and worship the Father receives (5:13).
Within 50 years of the composition of Revelation4,
Polycarp ascribes latreuô to Christ is his letter to the
Phillippians:
Whom
every breathing creature serves
(latreuei),
who is coming as “Judge of the living and the dead,” for whose blood
God will hold responsible those who disobey him… (Holmes,
The Apostolic Fathers, p. 209).
This evidence suggests that the First and Second Century church were
comfortable attributing to Christ the highest form of worship alongside
His Father because they recognized that such worship was rendered Christ
in the New Testament itself.
For an in-depth response to these Witness arguments, see Sam
Shamoun's Jesus and Latreuo.
_______________
Notes 1.
Verses 1:6, 5:10 and 22:5 do not specifically mention Christ reigning with
the saints, but it is clear from the context of Revelation that the rule
of the saints is participatory with Christ, as it is in His millennial
kingdom (verses 20:4, 6):
and they shall reign for ever and ever;
they are made kings now, and in this state they shall reign with Christ
for the space of a thousand years; and when they are ended, they shall
not cease to reign; nor will Christ, when he delivers up the kingdom to
the Father, for his and their kingdom is an everlasting one, Rev 1:6 (Gill).
See also Revelation 3:21.
2. "The author of Revelation shows a sternly negative attitude toward
other Christians who advocated what look like innovations in liturgical
practice or in scruples about worship, such as those he accuses of 'the
teaching of Balaam' (2:14) and the woman prophet whom he names 'Jezebel'
(2:20), all of whom he denounces as advocating 'fornication and eating
food sacrificed to idols.' Throughout Revelation, the author warns
about worship of 'the beast' (9:20; 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:9, 11; 16:2;
19:20; 20:4), and calls for worship of God alone (14:7; 19:10;
22:9). In the context of the author's strict scruples about
worship, the approval he give to reverence to the Lamb is
remarkable, and also without precedent in the Jewish background.
But the author's very conservative attitude about worship makes it
likely that his portrayal of worship as directed to God and to Jesus
reflected traditional attitudes and understanding" (Hurtado,
Worship, p. 92; emphasis in original).
3. See, for example, Stafford,
pp. 85-86).
4. Assuming the widely-regarded "late
date" for the composition of Revelation, about 96 AD. Some
scholars would date it somewhat earlier, closer to 70 AD.
|
