“`html
body { font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, serif; line-height: 1.6; max-width: 900px; margin: 20px auto; padding: 0 15px; }
h1, h2, h3 { color: #333; }
h2 { border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc; padding-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 30px; }
h3 { color: #555; margin-top: 25px; }
p { margin-bottom: 1em; }
blockquote { border-left: 4px solid #ccc; margin: 1.5em 10px; padding: 0.5em 10px; font-style: italic; background-color: #f9f9f9; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; }
li { margin-bottom: 0.5em; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
.greek-text { font-family: “Gentium Plus”, “Palatino Linotype”, “Times New Roman”, serif; font-size: 1.1em; }
An Exegetical Analysis of Revelation 21:3: Textual and Syntactic Issues
This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of Revelation 21:3: Textual and Syntactic Issues is based on a b-greek discussion concerning the interpretation of Revelation 21:1-7. The initial query focused on a syntactically perplexing passage within Revelation 21:3, specifically the fifth clause: καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἔσται [αὐτῶν θεός]. The core of the difficulty lies in the bracketed phrase, [αὐτῶν θεός], which, if omitted, renders the clause straightforwardly as “and God himself will be with them.”
The main exegetical issue under examination is the textual integrity and subsequent syntactic and semantic impact of the phrase αὐτῶν θεός in Revelation 21:3. Its presence or absence significantly alters the grammatical structure and rhetorical force of the promise concerning God’s dwelling with humanity in the new creation. Translations often grapple with how to integrate this phrase, either by supplying an implied conjunction and verb, or by interpreting it as an appositive, while some textual traditions omit it entirely. This complexity necessitates a careful textual and grammatical analysis to arrive at a nuanced understanding.
καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἔσται [αὐτῶν θεός].
— Nestle 1904 (implied from the original query’s bracketed text)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- The SBLGNT (2010) includes the phrase αὐτῶν θεός without any brackets, reading: καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσται αὐτῶν θεός. This indicates that the SBLGNT committee considers this phrase to be an integral part of the original text, unlike the implied Nestle 1904 reading (or older critical editions) that brackets the phrase, suggesting textual uncertainty.
Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)
Textual Criticism (NA28): The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28) includes the phrase αὐτῶν θεός without brackets, aligning with the SBLGNT. However, NA28 marks the *omission* of these words with a `{C}` textual apparatus symbol, indicating “considerable doubt” regarding the preferred reading (i.e., whether to include or omit). This suggests a significant textual variant tradition. Manuscripts supporting the *inclusion* of αὐτῶν θεός are numerous and weighty, including P47, א, A, C, P, 046, and the majority of Byzantine manuscripts (Maj), alongside various ancient versions (e.g., Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Armenian) and Church Fathers (e.g., Origen, Cyril). Conversely, manuscripts such as B, 2344, and some Coptic versions (sa, bo), along with certain patristic citations, *omit* the phrase. The strong external evidence for inclusion, despite the internal difficulties, favors its retention in the critical text, with the `{C}` apparatus signaling the scholarly debate surrounding it.
Lexical Notes:
- θεός (theos): In this context, BDAG defines θεός not merely as “God,” but specifically in the sense of “God in a special relationship with people, esp. Israel, and the people of God” (BDAG 445 s.v. “θεός”). This aligns with the phrase αὐτῶν θεός (“their God”), which represents a fundamental covenantal formula throughout the Old and New Testaments (e.g., Ex 6:7; Jer 24:7; Ezek 37:27; Heb 8:10). KITTEL (vol. III, pp. 65-120) provides an extensive theological discussion of θεός, emphasizing its use in expressing God’s relationship and sovereignty over His people. Its inclusion here underscores the fulfillment of this covenantal promise in the eschatological new heaven and new earth.
- μετά (meta): BDAG notes this preposition in the genitive case means “with, in company with,” indicating a close association or presence. Here, μετ᾽ αὐτῶν signifies God’s direct presence and communion with His people.
- ἔσται (estai): This is the future indicative middle-passive of εἰμί (“to be”). It denotes a certainty of future existence or state, emphasizing the definitive nature of God’s presence and relationship in the new creation.
- αὐτῶν (autōn): The genitive plural of the pronoun αὐτός, meaning “their.” It is possessive, defining the relationship of “God” (θεός) to “them.”
Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The core interpretive challenge lies in the grammatical function of αὐτῶν θεός when included in the text, given the preceding finite verb ἔσται. Two primary grammatical possibilities emerge:
1. Appositive Phrase: This interpretation understands αὐτῶν θεός as an appositive to the subject ὁ θεὸς, or more broadly, as an appositive elaborating on the nature of God’s presence “with them.” In this view, θεός (nominative singular) is in apposition to ὁ θεὸς (nominative singular subject), and αὐτῶν (genitive plural) indicates possession (“their God”). The lack of an explicit conjunction before αὐτῶν θεός supports this reading, as appositives typically stand in juxtaposition without a connecting particle. Rhetorically, this construction serves to intensify and clarify the meaning of God being “with them” by explicitly stating the specific covenantal relationship: He is not just present, but present as *their* God. This strengthens the eschatological fulfillment of the ancient promises.
2. Implied Second Predicate: Some translations, as noted in the original query, effectively supply an implied verb and conjunction (e.g., “and be their God”). This construes αὐτῶν θεός as a second predicate nominative related to the subject ὁ θεὸς, but requiring an elliptical future form of εἰμί (e.g., καὶ ἔσται, “and he will be”). While Greek can employ ellipsis, especially in parallel structures, the absence of καί or another conjunction makes this less grammatically straightforward than the appositive reading. Rhetorically, it would present two distinct but closely related aspects of God’s presence: His physical presence (“with them”) and His relational identity (“their God”). However, forcing an implied verb might diminish the immediate, emphatic impact of the apposition.
Considering the strong textual evidence for the inclusion of αὐτῶν θεός and its rhetorical significance as a covenantal formula, the appositive interpretation offers a more grammatically parsimonious and rhetorically potent solution. It allows the phrase to stand as an emphatic re-identification of God in His relationship with the redeemed, without needing to artificially supply missing grammatical elements.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
Given the prevailing textual evidence (NA28, SBLGNT) supporting the inclusion of αὐτῶν θεός and the grammatical viability of an appositive reading, this phrase should be retained and translated to reflect its covenantal and emphatic nature. The appositive approach maintains the Greek word order and avoids introducing unwarranted grammatical insertions, while powerfully affirming God’s unique relationship with His people in the new creation. The phrase serves as a climactic declaration of the fulfillment of ancient promises.
Here are three translation suggestions:
- “And God himself will be with them, their God.” This translation maintains the appositional structure directly, allowing the phrase to stand as an emphatic clarification of the nature of God’s presence.
- “And God himself will be with them as their God.” This version makes the apposition slightly more explicit by using “as,” clarifying the relational role without adding a full verb or conjunction.
- “And God himself will be with them—yes, their God.” This rendering uses an emphatic punctuation and particle (“yes”) to highlight the reaffirmation and climax of the covenantal promise, reflecting its rhetorical force.
“`
Hi Stephen,
In the Lexham Discourse GNT project, I analyzed the NA text, so I had to address the bracketed information. In characteristic fashion, John adds very little new information in these clauses. The result is that there is a lot of established information is reiterated in each successive clause of v. 3. I’d argue the repetition is thematically motivated to drive home a point.
If you were to include the bracketed text, I’d call it a right-dislocation, which is an appositive at the end of the clause that typically adds thematically salient information about some entity previously referred to in the clause. Since in this case the bracketed info is already well established (we are not wondering which “god” he is referring to), then there are two likely thematic functions for “their God.”
The first would be to affirm God’s role as “their God:” “And God himself will live with them, their God.” This would suggest a comparison to other gods of other peoples. What other people has experienced such a thing with their god? Who else would do such a thing?
The other possibility would be that the bracketed text is intended to reaffirm God’s identity. This would be major overkill based on AUTOS earlier in the clause, but seems fit best in the context based on the preceding clauses. Since the intensive “himself” has already been used, you’d likely need to use a different English strategy like “even their God.” It would be important to maintain the separate full reference at the end of the clause, since we are used to thematic information being placed there in English.
Look at the development of thought in each of the clauses in v. 3: 3b. The dwelling place of God [will be] with men; 3c. and He will reside with them (nicely balanced cola, narrowing the focus from “his residence” to “God”) 3d. and they will be his people (perhaps expecting a balanced colon of “and he will be their God”) 3e. and God himself, it is with THEM he will be–their God!
This is one of those troublesome and all-too-frequent places where I have a sense of what is going on in the text, but English words fail to capture it all in one tidy colon. It needs some waving of arms I think, but hopefully this will advance the discussion.
Regards,
Steve
Steven E. Runge, DLitt Scholar-in-Residence Logos Bible Software [email protected] http://www.logos.com http://www.ntdiscourse.org
What about this possibility: “And He, the God [who is] with them, will be their God.”?
Eric Inman
Hi Eric,
In analyzing the syntax, you have to account for placement of each piece. Here is the text again:
καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἔσται [αὐτῶν θεός],
KAI AUTOS hO QEOS MET’ AUTWN ESTAI [AUTWN QEOS].
The crux is explaining why μετ᾽ αὐτῶν MET’ AUTWN is before the verb. Is it because it is most important/emphasized? This is how I translated it in the last post. To read it this way, you’d have to take αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς AUTOS hO QEOS as a contrastive topic, which is what I had previously understood it as. Based on the presence of intensive αὐτὸς AUTOS and the bracketed text reaffirming it, I am wondering if I have missed an option.
The alternative way of analyzing the structure is to view αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς AUTOS hO QEOS as most salient/emphasized (in marked focus, technically speaking). In this case, the prepositional phrase is explained by natural information flow, and the bracketed info would then be reiterating what is most salient. This reading would be translates something like “And it is God himself who will be with them, their God.”
I’m not sure I had considered this latter reading a few years ago. It can account for all of the data. I’d be interested in hearing opinions from Carl, Randall or others on this.
Thanks for pushing back, Eric. My reading isn’t exactly like yours, but it may be compatible with what you were thinking. In any case, it is awkward to translate.
Regards,
Steve Runge
καὶ ἤκουσα φωνῆς μεγάλης ἐκ τοῦ θρόνου λεγούσης· ἰδοὺ ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ θεοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ σκηνώσει μετʼ αὐτῶν, καὶ αὐτοὶ λαοὶ αὐτοῦ ἔσονται, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετʼ αὐτῶν ἔσται [αὐτῶν θεός], KAI HKOUSA FWNHS MEGALHS EK TOU QRONOU LEGOUSHS
IDOU hH SKHNH TOU QEOU META TWN ANQRWPWN, KAI SKHNWSEI MET’ AUTWN, KAI AUTOI LAOI AUTOU ESONTAI, KAI AUTOS hO QEOS MET’ AUTWN ESTAI [AUTWN QEOS]
“John” never actually quotes a passage from the OT, but he does make obvious references to them and frequently adapts them to serve his own purpose. In this case he seems to be referencing Ezek 37.27 καὶ ἔσται ἡ κατασκήνωσίς μου ἐν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς θεός, καὶ αὐτοί μου ἔσονται λαός.
In Re 22.3 he first announces that God’s “tent” will be among men and essentially repeats it by saying that he will dwell among them. This statement and its repetition represents the first portion of Ezek 37.27. He then announces that God will himself be with them. This could be considered to cover the second portion of the statement of Ezek 37.27. If we take αὐτῶν θεός AUTWN QEOS as part of the original text, it must then be somewhat of a repetition of the preceding. If we accept αὐτῶν θεός AUTWN QEOS as part of the text, I would not take it so much as an appositive as a pred nom — “The same God with them shall be their God.” For the use of an anarthrous αὐτός AUTOS preceding an arthrous θεός QEOS cf Josephus, _Wars_ 7.346
ἀόρατος μένουσα τοῖς ἀνθρωπίνοις ὄμμασιν ὥσπερ αὐτὸς ὁ θεός· AORATOS MENOUSA TOIS ANQRWPINOIS OMMASIN hWSPER AUTOS hO QEOS
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Hi Stephen,
In the Lexham Discourse GNT project, I analyzed the NA text, so I had to address the bracketed information. In characteristic fashion, John adds very little new information in these clauses. The result is that there is a lot of established information is reiterated in each successive clause of v. 3. I’d argue the repetition is thematically motivated to drive home a point.
If you were to include the bracketed text, I’d call it a right-dislocation, which is an appositive at the end of the clause that typically adds thematically salient information about some entity previously referred to in the clause. Since in this case the bracketed info is already well established (we are not wondering which “god” he is referring to), then there are two likely thematic functions for “their God.”
The first would be to affirm God’s role as “their God:” “And God himself will live with them, their God.” This would suggest a comparison to other gods of other peoples. What other people has experienced such a thing with their god? Who else would do such a thing?
The other possibility would be that the bracketed text is intended to reaffirm God’s identity. This would be major overkill based on AUTOS earlier in the clause, but seems fit best in the context based on the preceding clauses. Since the intensive “himself” has already been used, you’d likely need to use a different English strategy like “even their God.” It would be important to maintain the separate full reference at the end of the clause, since we are used to thematic information being placed there in English.
Look at the development of thought in each of the clauses in v. 3: 3b. The dwelling place of God [will be] with men; 3c. and He will reside with them (nicely balanced cola, narrowing the focus from “his residence” to “God”) 3d. and they will be his people (perhaps expecting a balanced colon of “and he will be their God”) 3e. and God himself, it is with THEM he will be–their God!
This is one of those troublesome and all-too-frequent places where I have a sense of what is going on in the text, but English words fail to capture it all in one tidy colon. It needs some waving of arms I think, but hopefully this will advance the discussion.
Regards,
Steve
Steven E. Runge, DLitt Scholar-in-Residence Logos Bible Software [email protected] http://www.logos.com http://www.ntdiscourse.org
What about this possibility: “And He, the God [who is] with them, will be their God.”?
Eric Inman
Hi Eric,
In analyzing the syntax, you have to account for placement of each piece. Here is the text again:
καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἔσται [αὐτῶν θεός],
KAI AUTOS hO QEOS MET’ AUTWN ESTAI [AUTWN QEOS].
The crux is explaining why μετ᾽ αὐτῶν MET’ AUTWN is before the verb. Is it because it is most important/emphasized? This is how I translated it in the last post. To read it this way, you’d have to take αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς AUTOS hO QEOS as a contrastive topic, which is what I had previously understood it as. Based on the presence of intensive αὐτὸς AUTOS and the bracketed text reaffirming it, I am wondering if I have missed an option.
The alternative way of analyzing the structure is to view αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς AUTOS hO QEOS as most salient/emphasized (in marked focus, technically speaking). In this case, the prepositional phrase is explained by natural information flow, and the bracketed info would then be reiterating what is most salient. This reading would be translates something like “And it is God himself who will be with them, their God.”
I’m not sure I had considered this latter reading a few years ago. It can account for all of the data. I’d be interested in hearing opinions from Carl, Randall or others on this.
Thanks for pushing back, Eric. My reading isn’t exactly like yours, but it may be compatible with what you were thinking. In any case, it is awkward to translate.
Regards,
Steve Runge
καὶ ἤκουσα φωνῆς μεγάλης ἐκ τοῦ θρόνου λεγούσης· ἰδοὺ ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ θεοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ σκηνώσει μετʼ αὐτῶν, καὶ αὐτοὶ λαοὶ αὐτοῦ ἔσονται, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς μετʼ αὐτῶν ἔσται [αὐτῶν θεός], KAI HKOUSA FWNHS MEGALHS EK TOU QRONOU LEGOUSHS
IDOU hH SKHNH TOU QEOU META TWN ANQRWPWN, KAI SKHNWSEI MET’ AUTWN, KAI AUTOI LAOI AUTOU ESONTAI, KAI AUTOS hO QEOS MET’ AUTWN ESTAI [AUTWN QEOS]
“John” never actually quotes a passage from the OT, but he does make obvious references to them and frequently adapts them to serve his own purpose. In this case he seems to be referencing Ezek 37.27 καὶ ἔσται ἡ κατασκήνωσίς μου ἐν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς θεός, καὶ αὐτοί μου ἔσονται λαός.
In Re 22.3 he first announces that God’s “tent” will be among men and essentially repeats it by saying that he will dwell among them. This statement and its repetition represents the first portion of Ezek 37.27. He then announces that God will himself be with them. This could be considered to cover the second portion of the statement of Ezek 37.27. If we take αὐτῶν θεός AUTWN QEOS as part of the original text, it must then be somewhat of a repetition of the preceding. If we accept αὐτῶν θεός AUTWN QEOS as part of the text, I would not take it so much as an appositive as a pred nom – “The same God with them shall be their God.” For the use of an anarthrous αὐτός AUTOS preceding an arthrous θεός QEOS cf Josephus, _Wars_ 7.346
ἀόρατος μένουσα τοῖς ἀνθρωπίνοις ὄμμασιν ὥσπερ αὐτὸς ὁ θεός· AORATOS MENOUSA TOIS ANQRWPINOIS OMMASIN hWSPER AUTOS hO QEOS
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus