Revelation 2:1

[] Rev 2:1-8 Singleton, Michael (Volt)(Mike) Michael.Singleton at weyerhaeuser.com
Wed Oct 24 11:36:35 EDT 2007

[] EXANASTASIS [] Rev 2:1-6 In regards to Revelation 2 and Christ’s letter to the church at Ephesus:As a little Greek, I am very interested in the flow of these verses. Itappears from the English Bible that Christ first; Praises the Ephesians,Admonishes them, Tells (Imperative?) them to repent and return to theirfirst love. And then He states what appears to be somewhat of anon-sequitur; about he who overcomes, He will grant the Tree of Life inthe paradise of God. My questions are these:1.Does the morphology (this may not be the precise word) indicatea cause and effect between the Ephesians repenting, returning, and thenbeing granted access to the Tree of Life?2.Or does this simply mean an admonition for the Ephesians torepent and return to their first love, and then a general statement toALL the churches that he who overcomes will be granted access to theTree of Life?3.Does the word “AFIhHMI’ in vs.5 indicate a point in time, and ifso, what does that mean? One day the Ephesians decided to leave theirfirst (best, primary) love? Mike Singleton, PMPEnterprise Data Analyst(253) 924-3534michael.singleton at weyerhaueser.com

[] EXANASTASIS[] Rev 2:1-6

[] Rev 2:1-6 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Wed Oct 24 15:48:29 EDT 2007

[] Rev 2:1-8 [] Orthography of consonantal iota Τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐν Ἐφέσῳ ἐκκλησίας γράψον·Τάδε λέγει ὁ κρατῶν τοὺς ἑπτὰ ἀστέρας ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ, ὁ περιπατῶν ἐν μέσῳ τῶν ἑπτὰ λυχνιῶν τῶν χρυσῶν· 2 οἶδα τὰ ἔργα σου καὶ τὸν κόπον καὶ τὴν ὑπομονήν σου καὶ ὅτι οὐ δύνῃ βαστάσαι κακούς, καὶ ἐπείρασας τοὺς λέγοντας ἑαυτοὺς ἀποστόλους καὶ οὐκ εἰσὶν καὶ εὖρες αὐτοὺς ψευδεῖς, 3 καὶ ὑπομονὴν ἔχεις καὶ ἐβάστασας διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου καὶ οὐ κεκοπίακες. 4 ἀλλὰ ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ ὅτι τὴν ἀγάπην σου τὴν πρώτην ἀφῆκες. 5 μνημόνευε οὖν πόθεν πέπτωκας καὶ μετανόησον καὶ τὰ πρῶτα ἔργα ποίησον· εἰ δὲ μή, ἔρχομαί σοι καὶ κινήσω τὴν λυχνίαν σου ἐκ τοῦ τόπου αὐτῆς, ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσῃς. 6 ἀλλὰ τοῦτο ἔχεις, ὅτι μισεῖς τὰ ἔργα τῶν Νικολαϊτῶν ἃ κἀγὼ μισῶ.7 Ὁ ἔχων οὖς ἀκουσάτω τί τὸ πνεῦμα λέγει ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. Τῷ νικῶντι δώσω αὐτῷ φαγεῖν ἐκ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς, ὅ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ τοῦ θεοῦ. TWi AGGELWi THS EN EFESWi EKKLHSIAS GRAYON:1. TADE LEGEI hO KRATWN TOUS hEPTA ASTERAS EN THi DECIAi AUTOU, hO PERIPATWN EN MESWi TWN hEPTA LUXNIWN TWN XRUSWN2. OIDA TA ERGA SOU KAI TON KOPON KAI THN hUPOMONHN SOU KAI hOTI OU DUNHi BASTASAI KAKOUS, KAI EPEIRASAS TOUS LEGONTAS hEAUTOUS APOSTOLOUS KAI OUK EISIN KAI hEURES AUTOUS YEUDEIS3. KAI hUPOMONHN EXEIS KAI EBASTASAS DIA TO ONOMA MOU KAI OU KEKOPIAKES.4. ALLA EXW KATA SOU hOTI THN AGAPHN SOU THN PRWTHN AFHKES5. MNHMONEUE OUN POQEN PEPTWKAS KAI METANOHSON KAI TA PRWTA ERGA POIHSON; EI DE MH ERXOMAI SOI KAI KINHSW THN LUXNIAN SOU EK TOU TOPOU AUTHS, EAN MH METANOHSHiS.6. ALLA TOUTO EXEIS, hOTI MISEIS TA ERGA TWN NIKOLAITWN hA KA’GW MISW7. hO EXWN OUS AKOUSATW TI TO PNEUMA LEGEI TAIS EKKLHSIAIS. TWi NIKWNTI DWSW AUTWi FAGEIN EK TOU CULOU THS ZWHS, hO ESTIN EN TWi PARADEISWi TOU QEOU.There are some things regarding the Apocalypse which only become apparent when you have carefully read the entire book. Among them is that when the verb NIKAW is used it desigates the martyrdom of the members of the church. He who “overcomes” and thus dies for his faith is promised that he will “eat of the Tree of Life …” This is not a non sequitur but rests upon Old Testament imagery. We must here go back to the 2nd creation account where there are two trees in the garden. and it is forbidden for man to eat from the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.” For his offense man is cast out of the Garden. καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός Ἰδοὺ Αδαμ γέγονεν ὡς εἷς ἐξ ἡμῶν τοῦ γινώσκειν καλὸν καὶ πονηρόν, καὶ νῦν μήποτε ἐκτείνῃ τὴν χεῖρα καὶ λάβῃ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς καὶ φάγῃ καὶ ζήσεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. KAI EIPEN hO QEOS, “IDOU ADAM GEGONEN hWS EIS EC hHMWN TOU GINWSKEIN KALON KAI PONHRON; KAI NUN MHPOTE EKTEINHi THN XEIRA KAI LABHi TOU CULOU THS ZWHS KAI FAGHi KAI ZHSETAI EIS TON AIWNAIt is a precaution which is taken lest man eat from the Tree of Life and live forever that drives the expulsion. The promise therefore is twofold: 1. Eternal life2. Paradise regainedAn interesting book to read on the connection between Genesis and Revelation is Hermann Gunkel’s _Urzeit und Endzeit_ which has recently been translated _Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Era and the Eschaton_**********What I am about to write is by no means universally accepted. In Jude 12 this same word is used in a manner not common in the NT12 Οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν σπιλάδες συνευωχούμενοι ἀφόβως, ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες, νεφέλαι ἄνυδροι ὑπὸ ἀνέμων παραφερόμεναι, δένδρα φθινοπωρινὰ ἄκαρπα δὶς ἀποθανόντα ἐκριζωθέντα, hOUTOI EISIN hOI EN TAIS AGAPAIS hUMWN SPILADES SUNEUWXOUMENOI AFOBWS, hEAUTOUS POIMAINONTES, MEFELAI ANUDROI hUPO ANEMWN PARAFEROMENAI, DENDRA FQINOPWRINA AKARPA DIS APOQANONTA EKRIZWQENTAIt is here used of the Love Feast which I take to be a reference to the celebration of the Eucharist. I therefore do not take this passage in Revelation to refer to a statement of Christ that “You don’t love me enough” but rather that there was a very real departure from the proper observance of the sacrament. My guess on this is that it would refer to some gnostic influence, but that should not enter into the discussion. I simply include it here so as not to totally ignore it. If anyone wishes to pursue that, please contact me OFFLIST. georgegfsomsel Therefore, O faithful Christian, search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death. – Jan Hus_________—– Original Message —-From: “Singleton, Michael (Volt)(Mike)” <Michael.Singleton at weyerhaeuser.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 11:36:35 AMSubject: [] Rev 2:1-8In regards to Revelation 2 and Christ’s letter to the church at Ephesus:As a little Greek, I am very interested in the flow of these verses. Itappears from the English Bible that Christ first; Praises the Ephesians,Admonishes them, Tells (Imperative?) them to repent and return to theirfirst love. And then He states what appears to be somewhat of anon-sequitur; about he who overcomes, He will grant the Tree of Life inthe paradise of God. My questions are these:1. Does the morphology (this may not be the precise word) indicatea cause and effect between the Ephesians repenting, returning, and thenbeing granted access to the Tree of Life?2. Or does this simply mean an admonition for the Ephesians torepent and return to their first love, and then a general statement toALL the churches that he who overcomes will be granted access to theTree of Life?3. Does the word “AFIhHMI’ in vs.5 indicate a point in time, and ifso, what does that mean? One day the Ephesians decided to leave theirfirst (best, primary) love?Mike Singleton, PMPEnterprise Data Analyst(253) 924-3534michael.singleton at weyerhaueser.com— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

[] Rev 2:1-8[] Orthography of consonantal iota
: The Biblical Greek Forum

/////////////////////////////////////////// What does this text mean? Re: ANGELO of Rev 2:1

Posted: 10 Sep 2012 08:01 PM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/k-_07GnWu1M/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email

Hi Joe:

the reason, in Rev 2:1, it is “Write to (someone)” is because of the presense of the indirect object of the imperative “Write”. Rev 2:1 starts off with

τῷ ἀγγέλῳ <== this is in the dative (i.e. is the indirect object of a verb, the verb being “Write”)

The “normal” translation for the dative is using the keyword “to”.

Notice in 1:11 and 1:19 the verb “Write” does NOT have an indirect object, but one should note that there is a direct object (i.e. a noun in the accusative).

In 1:11, the direct object of “Write” is ὅ (which is the relative pronoun) and it is in the accusative (so is the direct object)

In 1:19, the direct object of “Write” is ἅ (which is the relative pronoun) and it is in the accusative (so is the direct object)

So, to answer your question on why the translators supplied the word “to” in Rev 2:1 is because the noun is in the dative (that is the case for the noun “angel” is in the dative).

Just a side note, there are 24 different “definite articles”, 8 for the masculine, 8 for the feminine, 8 for the neuter nouns. For each 8 definite articles, 4 are for singular and 4 are for plural. For each of the 4, one each is for the nominative, genitive, dative, accusative.

Glenn Statistics: Posted by GlennDean — September 10th, 2012, 11:01 pm

/////////////////////////////////////////// Introductions Re: Hello

Posted: 10 Sep 2012 07:29 PM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/oymRG6IymmA/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email

I did. I hope you find it helpful.

Feel free to email me off forum at mhouse@newgeneva.org. Statistics: Posted by Mark House — September 10th, 2012, 10:29 pm

/////////////////////////////////////////// What does this text mean? Re: ANGELO of Rev 2:1

Posted: 10 Sep 2012 03:44 PM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/6D1lvNfCgHA/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email

Iver Larsen wrote: Joe,

You asked: “I understand each angel simply to be John. Do you think that conclusion is even possible based solely upon the greek?”

Several people have already responded, and the short answer is: No, it is not possible. The Greek text uses an imperative: You, John, is to write a message. The recipient of the message is the “angelos” for each church, which means “messenger” in Greek. What kind of messenger is unclear, but it cannot be John, and the speaker does not designate John as that messenger.

Rev 1:11 and Rev 1:19 contain the same imperative, simply, “GRAPSON/write”. However in those cases the sense of “write to” does not surface in the translations. In Rev 2:1 GRAPSON is translated as “write to (someone)”, though I do not understand why, cause it is the exact same word used in 1:11 and 1:19 and there are absoulutly no other modifiers (that I see) in 2:1 which would cast a different grammatical emphasis of action upon GRAPSON.

The only other modifier for ANGELOS is a definint article which translators state as “the”. Would it be correct to say that the english word “to” has been added by translators for clarity in vs 2:1? Statistics: Posted by Joe Rutherford — September 10th, 2012, 6:44 pm

/////////////////////////////////////////// Introductions Re: Hello

Posted: 10 Sep 2012 02:24 PM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/qoDgRPKOQbc/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email

Mark House wrote: Welcome from a fellow Springs resident, Joe.

Thanks Mark. BTW- Today I purchased a copy of “Analytical Lexicon of New Testament Greek” and I assume you served as co-editor (?). I think this will help alot in learning greek. I have a long ways to go, but seem to be off to a good start at least. Statistics: Posted by Joe Rutherford — September 10th, 2012, 5:24 pm

/////////////////////////////////////////// Seen on the Web Raphael Kuhner on the Greek verb

Posted: 10 Sep 2012 01:32 PM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/qctnzSNHHuE/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email

I know this is kind of tooting my own horn, but I thought some might be interested in my thoughts on Raphael Kuhner’s grammar as translated and revised by William Jelf in the 1866 edition. This is a continuation of my survey of how tense-aspect issues have been treated by Greek grammars through the past centuries.

Occasional Surveys in the History of Greek Grammar: Raphael Kühner & William Jelf (1866)

The introduction to the series with links to all discussions thus far are available here: Greek Linguistic Historiography Statistics: Posted by MAubrey — September 10th, 2012, 4:32 pm

/////////////////////////////////////////// Introductions Jen Becht Newbie from Australia

Posted: 10 Sep 2012 09:39 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/gFAO-FJLK50/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email

Hi, My name is Jen. I am a part time skin specialist. I live in Australia. I specialize in treating skin problem such as acne, acne scar and skin rejunvenation. I came from a very christian family. I study the bible since age 14! I am so blessed that I found this forum.

My greatest passion in life is helping people with skin problems and spreading the words of Christ. Statistics: Posted by jenbecht — September 10th, 2012, 12:39 pm

/////////////////////////////////////////// New Testament Re: Passages with Historic Present

Posted: 10 Sep 2012 05:53 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/6Jbcu9_PFC8/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email

I don’t know how a computer program can distinguish between ordinary and historical presents from among all the verbs tagged as present indicative.

One approach is to use the lists of them that people have complied. One of them should be out of copyright, by J. C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, though I think it only does the synoptics.

Stephen Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — September 10th, 2012, 8:53 am

/////////////////////////////////////////// New Testament Re: Τhe perfect οιδα & Romans 8:28

Posted: 10 Sep 2012 05:32 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/oHZKYe-lD5w/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email

My position is that οἶδα over the ages has effectively lexicalized from what used to be a very ancient perfect into what is now a stative verb with perfect morphology. Thus, the key to understanding its meaning is not the grammar book but the lexicon. That means, people in this thread should be citing BDAG or LSJM for οἶδα, not Wallace for his general remarks on the perfect.

I also disagree with Peterson’s apparent grammatical argument here:

Brian Peterson wrote: I tend to think that the fact that “παντα συνεργει εις αγαθον”, as articulated in Romans 8:28, is a result of having seen/observed such truth from the past in God’s historical dealings of those within Israel, and this leads to a present result of “knowing” (“the act of seeing in the past slides over into the results of now knowing). Is this fair?

Whether or not the conclusion holds, it is eisegesis to base it on the grounds that οἶδα is morphological perfect. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — September 10th, 2012, 8:32 am

/////////////////////////////////////////// New Testament Passages with Historic Present

Posted: 10 Sep 2012 04:38 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/xgDdjflXvL0/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email

I’ve seen a few of the members out here that have the ability to run a program that spits out a lot of examples. Can some post passages in which the Historic Present is used? Thank you in advance if this is possible. Statistics: Posted by Alan Patterson — September 10th, 2012, 7:38 am

/////////////////////////////////////////// Vocabulary Re: Kai

Posted: 10 Sep 2012 04:19 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/GnvkyzDDX-4/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email

withdrew my comment Statistics: Posted by Alan Patterson — September 10th, 2012, 7:19 am

/////////////////////////////////////////// New Testament Re: Τhe perfect οιδα & Romans 8:28

Posted: 10 Sep 2012 03:58 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/o609frFCcJ4/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email

Would it be fair that οιδα can signify “I know” (in a stative manner) based upon “having perceived” in the past? Wallace observes that “there is very little distinction between the act and its results…The result of knowing is knowing…Thus this usage occurs especially with verbs where the act slides over into the results. They are resultative perfects to the point that the act itself has virtually died; the results have become the act (GGBB, 580).” I tend to think that the fact that “παντα συνεργει εις αγαθον”, as articulated in Romans 8:28, is a result of having seen/observed such truth from the past in God’s historical dealings of those within Israel, and this leads to a present result of “knowing” (“the act of seeing in the past slides over into the results of now knowing). Is this fair?

Brian Peterson

Re: Τhe perfect οιδα & Romans 8:28

Unread postby Stephen Carlson » September 10th, 2012, 5:24 am

Brian Peterson wrote:

So I wouldn’t rely on οἶδα as meaning “I have perceived.”

Would it be fair that οιδα can signify “I know” (in a stative manner) based upon “having perceived” in the past?

Stephen Carlson wrote:

No, it wouldn’t quite be fair to do so. Although it may well have been true far in the pre-Greek past that the ancestral form of οἶδα originally meant “I have seen” in Proto-Indo-European, it would be an instance of the etymological fallacy to suppose that, apart from evidence of contemporary usage, this ancient meaning persisted into the Koine Greek. Relevant evidence is that of contemporary usage, for which you should consult the appropriate resources, such as BDAG and LSJM lexica.

From Alan Patterson

Re: these resultive perfects

I think I misunderstand Stephen’s reply, since I would replied to your question…. Would it be fair that οιδα can signify “I know” (in a stative manner) based upon “having perceived” in the past? …Yes, this is exactly correct. Now, I would agree with Stephen if his argument is that “having perceived” means “having look at and now understand.”

The idea of οἶδα is that one has a thorough understanding of the issue at hand. One could say that he has thoroughly perceived the subject matter and is in a state of knowing.

By the way, note that Wallace says

“there is very little distinction between the act and its results…The result of knowing is knowing…Thus this usage occurs especially with verbs where the act slides over into the results. They are resultative perfects to the point that the act itself has virtually died; the results have become the act.

This corresponds to my earlier statement that the event is parenthetical. I.e., it is not part of the subject being discussed; rather, the act/state is entirely in focus. The antecedent event is not known, other than one can possibly surmise how the individual has come to currently be in this state.

Stephen, can you clarify your statement as to why you disagreed with Brian’s statement:

So I wouldn’t rely on οἶδα as meaning “I have perceived.”

Statistics: Posted by Alan Patterson — September 10th, 2012, 6:58 am

/////////////////////////////////////////// New Testament Re: Τhe perfect οιδα & Romans 8:28

Posted: 10 Sep 2012 02:24 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/uHzcZpOxgyU/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email

Brian Peterson wrote: So I wouldn’t rely on οἶδα as meaning “I have perceived.”

Would it be fair that οιδα can signify “I know” (in a stative manner) based upon “having perceived” in the past?

/////////////////////////////////////////// New Testament Re: Τhe perfect οιδα & Romans 8:28

Posted: 09 Sep 2012 12:31 PM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/F1zp-fMXjSs/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email

So I wouldn’t rely on οἶδα as meaning “I have perceived.”

People who read this article also liked:

Leave a Reply