Revelation 22:11

body { font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.6; max-width: 800px; margin: auto; padding: 20px; }
h1, h2, h3 { color: #333; }
blockquote { border-left: 5px solid #eee; padding-left: 15px; margin: 20px 0; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; }
ol { margin-left: 20px; }

An Exegetical Study of Revelation 22:11 and 3rd Person Imperatives

This exegetical study of Revelation 22:11 and 3rd Person Imperatives is based on a b-greek discussion from October 18, 2001. The initial query centered on the precise force of 3rd person imperatives, particularly as they appear in Revelation 22:11. The discussion began by questioning a prominent New Testament grammar’s assessment that the force of such imperatives is more prescriptive (“he must” or “I command him to”) than permissive (“let him”), and whether a distinct category of “permissive imperatives” represents an exception to this general rule.

The main exegetical issue under consideration is the semantic function of the four 3rd person aorist imperatives in Revelation 22:11: ἀδικησάτω, ῥυπανθήτω, ποιησάτω, and ἁγιασθήτω. At the close of the biblical canon, these commands appear to pronounce a final, irreversible state for individuals. The central interpretive challenge lies in determining whether these imperatives function as genuine commands, as permissions, or as determinative pronouncements of what will inevitably occur. This distinction carries significant theological weight, particularly in understanding the nature of divine judgment and human destiny in eschatological contexts.

Ὁ ἀδικῶν ἀδικησάτω ἔτι καὶ ὁ ῥυπαρὸς ῥυπανθήτω ἔτι, καὶ ὁ δίκαιος δικαιοσύνην ποιησάτω ἔτι καὶ ὁ ἅγιος ἁγιασθήτω ἔτι. (Nestle 1904)

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• The Nestle 1904 transcription provided does not include commas after ἀδικησάτω ἔτι and ποιησάτω ἔτι, which are present in SBLGNT (2010), reading: Ὁ ἀδικῶν ἀδικησάτω ἔτι, καὶ ὁ ῥυπαρὸς ῥυπανθήτω ἔτι, καὶ ὁ δίκαιος δικαιοσύνην ποιησάτω ἔτι, καὶ ὁ ἅγιος ἁγιασθήτω ἔτι. No other significant lexical or morphological variants are observed between the two editions for this verse.

Textual Criticism (NA28), Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG):

The textual base for Revelation 22:11 is remarkably stable across critical editions like NA28. There are no significant variants affecting the wording or the imperative mood of the verbs. The textual evidence consistently supports the inclusion of all four imperative clauses.

• ἀδικέω (adikéō): BDAG defines this as “to act unjustly,” “to do wrong,” or “to harm.” KITTEL emphasizes its comprehensive scope of injustice, encompassing legal, social, and moral transgression. In this eschatological context, it refers to a persistent state of wrongdoing.
• ῥυπαρός (rhypáros) / ῥυπαίνω (rhypaínō): BDAG translates ῥυπαρός as “dirty,” “filthy,” often with a moral connotation of impurity or defilement (cf. Rev 22:11, Jas 2:2). ῥυπαίνω means “to make dirty” or “to defile.” KITTEL highlights the association with moral corruption and uncleanness, particularly in cultic or eschatological contexts, where it signifies a state of spiritual defilement.
• δίκαιος (díkaios) / δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosýnē): BDAG defines δίκαιος as “righteous,” “just,” indicating adherence to moral and divine standards. δικαιοσύνη refers to “righteousness” or “justice.” KITTEL explores the concept of righteousness as conformity to God’s will and covenant, a state that is both imputed and demonstrated through action.
• ἅγιος (hágios) / ἁγιάζω (hagiázō): BDAG defines ἅγιος as “holy,” “set apart for God.” ἁγιάζω means “to make holy,” “to sanctify.” KITTEL traces the concept of holiness from its cultic separation to its ethical and spiritual dimensions, emphasizing a state of purity and consecration to God.
• ἔτι (eti): BDAG renders this as “still,” “yet,” “further,” “henceforth.” In Rev 22:11, it underscores the continuation and finality of the states described, indicating that the condition described by the imperative is fixed from this point forward.

Translation Variants

The grammatical analysis of Revelation 22:11 centers on the precise semantic force of the 3rd person imperatives. While grammatically they are commands, their contextual and rhetorical function in this eschatological passage is debated. Wallace (1996, p. 486) posits that the typical English translation “let him…” often misconstrues the force as permissive, when it is frequently prescriptive, akin to “he must” or “I command him to.” However, he also identifies a category of “Permissive Imperative (Imperative of Toleration)” (p. 489ff), which raises the question of whether Rev 22:11 falls into such an exception.

A key counter-argument suggests that these imperatives function not as commands at all, but as “imperatives of pronouncement” or “prophetic imperatives.” This interpretation posits that the grammatical form of a command is employed to convey a pronouncement of what *will* definitively happen or what *is already* established as an unchangeable state. This aligns with the context of Revelation’s closing chapter, where the finality of spiritual states is declared. The intertextual link to Isaiah 6:9-10, where divine pronouncements about human unresponsive hearts are similarly cast in imperative form, strongly supports this view. The alternating active (ἀδικησάτω, ποιησάτω) and passive (ῥυπανθήτω, ἁγιασθήτω) imperatives do not alter this interpretive stance; rather, they describe the active perpetuation of unrighteousness and righteousness, and the passive state of being defiled or sanctified, respectively.

Rhetorically, Wallace himself labels the imperatives in Rev 22:11 as an “ironic command” (p. 491, n. 109). This rhetorical device emphasizes the fixed and inescapable destiny of individuals. The repeated particle ἔτι (“still,” “yet,” “henceforth”) underscores the continuation and finality of these states. The passage is not an exhortation to further evil or good, but a declaration that at the close of all things, those who persist in injustice will remain unjust, and those who remain righteous will persist in their righteousness. This makes the “pronouncement” interpretation highly compelling, reflecting a divine decree of immutable spiritual condition rather than an active directive.

Furthermore, the grammatical discussion noted that the 3rd person imperative was already less common in Koine Greek, often supplanted by periphrastic constructions. The rarity in English of a truly strong “let him do X” (without a permissive nuance) often leads to misinterpretation. Comparisons with other languages (e.g., French “que + pron. + subj.,” German “mögen + inf.” or “lassen + acc. + inf.”) illustrate how different linguistic systems convey the volitive sense of a 3rd person imperative, often through subjunctive or auxiliary constructions that emphasize necessity or allowance rather than direct command.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

Based on the textual, lexical, grammatical, and rhetorical analysis, the imperatives in Revelation 22:11 are best understood as pronouncements of an established and immutable reality, rather than direct commands or permissions for future action. They function as a solemn declaration of fixed moral and spiritual states at the culmination of the divine plan, emphasizing the finality of judgment and destiny.

1. “Let the one who does wrong continue to do wrong; let the filthy one continue to be filthy; let the righteous one continue to do righteousness; and let the holy one continue to be holy.”
   This translation retains the imperative form, but the contextual understanding of “let” should be interpreted as a divine allowance or declaration of a fixed state, rather than permission to change one’s course.
2. “The one who does wrong will persist in wrong; the filthy one will remain filthy; the righteous one will continue in righteousness; and the holy one will remain holy.”
   This translation emphasizes the determinative nature of the imperatives, rendering them as prophetic declarations of what will certainly occur, aligning with the “pronouncement imperative” interpretation.
3. “Whoever is unjust, let him be unjust still; whoever is vile, let him be vile still; whoever is righteous, let him be righteous still; and whoever is holy, let him be holy still.”
   This option highlights the persistent nature of each state with “still,” while the imperative “let him be” carries the solemn weight of an unchangeable decree, bordering on ironic command.