An Exegetical Analysis of Revelation 1:1-2: Identifying the Agent of Revelation and Grammatical Structure
This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of Revelation 1:1-2: Identifying the Agent of Revelation and Grammatical Structure is based on a b-greek discussion from October 31, 2004. The initial query proposed a reading of Revelation 1:1-2 where the verb ἐσημανεν (“he indicated” or “he signified”) serves as the main clause, taking ὅσα εἶδεν (“all things he saw”) as its direct object and Ἰωάννῃ (“to John”) as its indirect object, thereby implying John as the subject of the seeing. This interpretation suggests a translation such as “He indicated to John all things he saw.”
The main exegetical issue under debate revolves around the precise grammatical structure of Revelation 1:1-2 and, consequently, the identification of the agents of revelation at various points in the text. Specifically, the discussion centers on determining the subject of the main verb ἐσημανεν and the participle ἀποστείλας, as well as the referents of the numerous possessive pronouns (αὐτῷ, αὐτοῦ). Furthermore, the function and placement of the clause ὅσα εἶδεν are critically examined, with differing views on whether it acts as a direct object of ἐσημανεν, an appositive to previous phrases, or whether John is the one who “saw.” The broader implications touch upon the hierarchical chain of revelation (God -> Jesus -> Angel -> John) and the theological understanding of Christ’s role within this process, especially given the author’s distinct stylistic and grammatical tendencies within the Apocalypse.
Greek text (Nestle-Aland 28):
Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει, καὶ ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννῃ, ὃς ἐμαρτύρησεν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅσα εἶδεν.
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- No substantial differences in text between NA28 and SBLGNT for Revelation 1:1-2. Both present essentially the same Greek wording, reflecting a broad consensus in modern critical editions. The underlying textual tradition is consistent in this passage.
Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes
For Revelation 1:1-2, the Nestle-Aland 28th edition (NA28) presents a text that is highly stable, with no significant textual variants impacting the grammatical and semantic issues discussed. The critical apparatus for these verses primarily lists minor orthographic differences or omissions of definite articles in a few manuscripts, none of which alter the core interpretive debate concerning verb subjects or pronoun referents.
Lexical Notes
- Ἀποκάλυψις (apokalypsis): “a disclosure, an uncovering, revelation” (BDAG, s.v.). Here, it signifies the content of the divine disclosure given to John.
- ἐσημανεν (esēmanen): Aorist active indicative of σημαίνω (sēmainō), meaning “to give a sign, signify, indicate, make known” (BDAG, s.v.). The verb implies conveying information through signs or symbolic actions, fitting for apocalyptic literature. One commentator cited Heraclitus for the intransitive use “points/signals” or “delivered the message.”
- δοῦλος (doulos): “a person owned by another; slave” (BDAG, s.v.). The discussion notes that while “servant” is a common biblical translation, “slave” more accurately conveys the full force of absolute authority held by the master in the 1st-century Roman context. This term emphasizes complete submission to God or Christ.
- λογος τοῦ θεοῦ (logos tou theou): “the Word of God.” In Revelation, this often refers to the divine message or proclamation, sometimes personified as Christ (Rev 19:13).
- μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (martyria Iēsou Christou): “the testimony of Jesus Christ.” μαρτυρία (martyria) means “attestation, testimony, witness” (BDAG, s.v.). The discussion highlights that in Revelation, this term often carries connotations of suffering and martyrdom for one’s faith, as seen in passages like Revelation 6:9.
- εἶδεν (eiden): Aorist active indicative of ὁράω (horaō), “to see, perceive.” One commentator corrected another’s use of εἰδεναι (infinitive of οἶδα, “to know”) for εἶδεν (aorist of ὁράω), emphasizing that in Revelation, this verb consistently refers to John’s visionary experiences.
- ἐμαρτύρησεν (emartyrēsen): Aorist active indicative of μαρτυρέω (martyreō), “to bear witness, testify.” The nature of this aorist (simple past vs. epistolary aorist) was debated, with arguments against it being an epistolary aorist due to its third-person usage and non-γράφω/πέμπω context.
Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The core of the discussion lies in resolving the grammatical ambiguities within Revelation 1:1-2, particularly regarding the subjects of the main verbs and the referents of the pronouns.
1. The Subject of ἔδωκεν, δεῖξαι, and ἐσημανεν:
* The phrase ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς clearly states that ὁ θεὸς (“God”) is the subject of ἔδωκεν (“gave”).
* The infinitive δεῖξαι (“to show”) is generally understood to have its subject implied from the preceding dative αὐτῷ (“to him”), which refers to Jesus Christ. Thus, God gave the revelation to Jesus for Jesus to show.
* The verb ἐσημανεν (“he indicated/signified”) is introduced by καί (“and”). Several interpretations arose for its subject:
* God as subject: Some argued that ὁ θεὸς, being the most recent nominative subject, carries over to ἐσημανεν, especially if καί is seen as a linking conjunction.
* Jesus as subject: Others contended that the semantic flow, particularly the chain of custody (God -> Jesus -> Angel -> John), points to Jesus as the implicit subject, continuing his role as the agent to whom God gave the revelation. This is supported by parallel passages like Revelation 22:16, where Jesus explicitly states, “I, Jesus, sent my angel to testify these things to you.” The participle ἀποστείλας (“having sent”) being masculine nominative singular, aligns grammatically with either God or Jesus, but context favors Jesus continuing the action initiated by God.
* One commentator, in proposing a translation, viewed ἀποστείλας as an adverbial clause specifying *how* the revelation came to John.
2. The Referents of the Pronouns αὐτῷ and αὐτοῦ:
* αὐτῷ (dative singular): In ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ, this clearly refers to Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, as the revelation is “of Jesus Christ” and given to him by God.
* αὐτοῦ (genitive singular): This pronoun appears multiple times:
* τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ (“to his servants”): The discussion suggests these are Jesus’s servants, consistent with Jesus being the agent who shows the revelation.
* διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ (“through his angel”): Again, the context and parallels (Rev 22:16) lean towards Jesus’s angel, though some argue for God’s angel based on 22:6 (though the identity of the angel in 22:6 is itself debated).
* τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννῃ (“to his servant John”): Consistently interpreted as John being Jesus’s servant.
3. The Function of ὅσα εἶδεν:
* This clause, “all things he saw,” is a major point of contention.
* Object of ἐσημανεν: The initial query suggested ὅσα εἶδεν as the direct object of ἐσημανεν (“he indicated… the things he saw”). This implies John as the subject of εἶδεν.
* Appositive to the testimony: A strong counter-argument proposes that ὅσα εἶδεν is in apposition to τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (“the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ”). This suggests that what John witnessed *was* what he saw. This reading is more natural given the proximity and avoids a very long syntactic separation between verb and object.
* A scholar notes that ὅσα is plural and refers to the preceding two things (Word of God and Testimony of Jesus Christ) *kata synesin* (“according to the sense”).
* The argument against ὅσα εἶδεν being an object of ἐμαρτύρησεν is that John could not have “witnessed” (aorist past tense) the *entire* revelation as a past event, as it was still future for him in the introductory verses. However, this is countered by the possibility of an epistolary aorist (though doubted for ἐμαρτύρησεν) or simply that John *had* witnessed these things by the time he wrote the letter.
4. Stylistic Considerations:
* Commentators frequently noted the “loose” or “paratactic” style of Revelation, often compared to Hebrew syntax (e.g., the use of καί). This implies that rigid adherence to classical Greek grammatical rules might be misleading, as the author might prioritize chains of thought over strict syntactic precision. This looseness can contribute to ambiguity in pronoun referents and clause relationships.
* The distinction between οἶδα (“know”) and ὁράω (“see”) was highlighted as important, with εἶδεν consistently referring to visionary experience in Revelation.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The analysis of Revelation 1:1-2 reveals inherent grammatical ambiguities that permit multiple exegetical pathways. While God is clearly the ultimate source of the revelation, Jesus Christ is presented as the primary agent of its communication, acting through an angel to John. The precise relationship between John’s “witnessing” and “seeing” remains a point of interpretive nuance. The stylistic characteristics of Revelation further complicate a definitive, singular grammatical parsing.
Here are three possible translations, each reflecting a distinct exegetical emphasis:
1. “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him [Jesus] to show his [Jesus’s] servants the things that must soon take place; and he [Jesus] signified it by sending it through his [Jesus’s] angel to his [Jesus’s] servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, all that he [John] saw.”
* This translation emphasizes Jesus as the continuous agent of revelation and signification, with John as the recipient and seer. It takes ὅσα εἶδεν as the direct object of ἐσημανεν, but clarifies that John is the subject of εἶδεν.
2. “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him [Jesus] to show his [Jesus’s] servants what must soon take place. And he [God] made it known, having sent it through his [God’s] angel to his [God’s] servant John, who testified to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ as much as he [John] saw.”
* This option maintains God as the subject of ἐσημανεν, reflecting a chain where God directly “signified” the message that He had given to Jesus to show. It treats ὅσα εἶδεν as an appositive qualifying the testimony, with John as the subject of seeing.
3. “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him [Jesus] to show his [Jesus’s] servants what must soon take place, and he [Jesus] communicated it by sending through his [Jesus’s] angel to his [Jesus’s] servant John—who bore witness to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, that is, the things he [John] saw.”
* This translation highlights Jesus’s agency for both showing and communicating, while interpreting ὅσα εἶδεν as an explanatory appositive to the combined phrase “word of God and testimony of Jesus Christ,” thereby equating what John witnessed with what he saw in his vision.