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.
Joe Rutherford wrote:[...] What is the indirect object of GRAPSON? As you pointed out the normal/traditional interpretation is that TWi AGGELWi should be the indirect object and therefore would best be translated using the English "to". [...]
I submit that the indirect object of GRAPSON in Rev 2:1 is simply the words for the Church at Ephesus, which the Spirit is about to speak and John is to write. [...]
Joe Rutherford wrote:Even if the message to each Church could not be described technicaly as the indirect object of GRAPSON, I still believe the message in each case is what John is being told to write, and that he is not being told to write to an angel.
Joe Rutherford wrote:I submit that the indirect object of GRAPSON in Rev 2:1 is simply the words...
Joe Rutherford wrote:In conclusion, I suppose this could be considered an issue of interpretation.
timothy_p_mcmahon wrote:Joe Rutherford wrote:I submit that the indirect object of GRAPSON in Rev 2:1 is simply the words...
No, that's the direct object — what John writes.
The indirect object (if that's even the appropriate term here) is the recipient of the writing, which, as David points out immediately above, is the αγγελω. The addressee of a letter in Greek is in the dative. This is the case in every epistle in the NT where the addressee is specified: πασιν τοις ουσιν εν ρωμη; πασιν τοις αγιοις εν χριστω ιησου τοις ουσιν εν φιλιπποις; τιτω γνησιω τεκνω; κτλ.Joe Rutherford wrote:In conclusion, I suppose this could be considered an issue of interpretation.
Precisely. It's an issue of you allowing your desired interpretation to override the clear sense of the grammar.
Ironically (moderators: please pardon this brief dalliance), I agree with your theology on the issue. But there are other ways, consistent with the syntax, of deriving it. (If you'd care to PM or email me, please feel free.)
Joe Rutherford wrote:Hey Timothy, I'd be delighted to hear your analysis of the topic. PM or post if you'd like. I'm sure it would be a blessing. In your above post you refer to " the clear sense of the grammer". On that topic, one thing that stands out in this discussion is the constant reminder that AGGELWi is in the dative. What has not been pointed out, is that there are three general categories of the dative. Indirect object is one category. Instrumental is a dative category which no one has addressed in relation to AGGELWi. Is there some widely recognized grammatical rule which would forbid AGGELWi in Rev 2:1 to be classified as an instrumental dative?
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest