From: Ilvgrammta@aol.com
Date: Sun Jan 06 2002 - 16:22:50 EST
<x-html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:15 EDT
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT SIZE=2>In a message dated 1/6/2002 12:14:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, Clwinbery@aol.com writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Clay, I have not read Carrell's defense of the application of the sing. AUTOU
<BR>to both God and Jesus, but my work in the Apocalypse would say the normative
<BR>way to refer to both the Christ and God for the writer would be as it is in
<BR>6:16-17 where the one who sits on the throne and the lamb are referred back
<BR>to by the use of AUTWN in the plural.
<BR>
<BR>hHMAS KAI KRUYATE hHMAS APO PROSWPOU TOU KAQHMENOU EPI TOU QRONOU KAI APO THS
<BR>ORGHS TOU ARNIOU, OTI HLQEN hH hHMERA hH MEGALH THS ORGHS *AUTWN.
<BR>
<BR>I looked hastely at the occurances of AUTOU and could not find one that
<BR>referred to
<BR>God and the Christ. So I would take some convincing by something other than
<BR>theological arguments.
<BR>
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>I have read Carrell's argument (Jesus and the Angels: Angelology and Christology of the Apocalypse of John. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) and others like it (GRB Murray, G. Caird) and I have not found any convincing grammatical evidence to support the "unity" idea.
<BR>
<BR>Loren Stuckenbruck (Angel Veneration and Christology. Tubingen: JCB Mohr, 1995) thinks that the same type of "unity" mentioned by Clay is delineated in Rev 11:15: EGENETO hH BASILEIA TOU KOSMOU TOU KURIOU hHMWN KAI TOU XRISTOU AUTOU KAI *BASILEUSEI* EIS TOUS AIWNAS TWN AIWNWN.
<BR>
<BR>But the person who "will rule" in this verse could well be hO QEOS hO PANTOKRATWR (Rev 11:16-17).
<BR>
<BR>Rev 22:3 is another text that employs the singular pronoun AUTOU. This verse has also caused a certain degree of confusion. To whom does the antecedent refer here? Again, I submit that the context suggests that one person is in view, to wit, hO QEOS and not the Lamb.
<BR>
<BR>hOI DOULOI AUTOU will see "his face" (God's), (Rev 22:4) his name is no doubt on their foreheads (Rev 7:3; 9:4; 14:1), and hO KURIOS hO QEOS is identified with hOI DOULOI AUTOU in Rev 22:6.
<BR>
<BR>Interestingly, George Buchanan (Mellen Commentary on Revelation) presents arguments for God OR Christ being the antecedent in Rev 22:3. He does not argue that John is depicting some type of primal metaphysical unity. Ford (Anchor Bible Commentary) thinks that TOU ARNIOU is an interpolation in Rev 22:3, while David Aune believes that Jesus Christ is the antecedent of AUTOU in Rev 1:1 and he also indicates that God is the antecedent of AUTOU in Rev 22:3.
<BR>
<BR>Revelation is not the only work that gives one headaches when it comes to AUTOS. I once undertook a study of 1 John and found that John's use of AUTOS in that work is extremely difficult to decipher at some points. See 1 Jn 2:23-29; 3:1-3 for examples of such difficulties.
<BR>
<BR>Regards,
<BR>Edgar Foster</FONT>
---<BR>
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]<BR>
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu<BR>
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu<BR>
<BR>
</html>
</x-html>