tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5451417953885022907.post7551440221522477196..comments2009-08-02T16:28:23.717-07:00Comments on Latter-day Saint Readings of Revelation 21-22: Revelations 21: 5-9Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5451417953885022907.post-78854589845357419542009-06-12T07:41:04.507-07:002009-06-12T07:41:04.507-07:0021:9 - "Then one of the seven angels who had ...<b>21:9 - "Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, 'Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.'"</b><br /><br /><br />Why is a "plague" angel introducing John to the wife of the Lamb? Aren't there any non-plague angels available for this more genteel task of making introductions? Does the angel have the seven bowls of plagues <i>in hand</i> while the introductions are being made? What a curious image.Adam Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14276201812948999287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5451417953885022907.post-78979166989283894972009-06-06T09:43:02.721-07:002009-06-06T09:43:02.721-07:00Brandie writes: "In this regard, though, I’d...Brandie writes: "In this regard, though, I’d like you to say more about how Isaiah 65:17 as complicates Revelation’s use of “writing” and “making new” in what you see as especially interesting ways."<br /><br />I find irony in that "all things" have been made new, but we are going to express that fact via language that is very old (from Isaiah, who recorded the promise that all things would be made new) and write it down, which means that it will also age, and yet it represents newness. So all things might have been made new, but old things (Isaiah's writings) still have use and value.Julie M. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03456186082820859709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5451417953885022907.post-82521539344556210432009-06-04T07:43:42.481-07:002009-06-04T07:43:42.481-07:00Brandie says:
"These feasts and fountains su...Brandie says:<br /><br />"These feasts and fountains suggest a delightful paradox: dependence on God is really the freedom of unrestrained growth."<br /><br />I agree with Julie that this is a fantastic formulation. <br /><br />Further, I'm very interested in how you've identified thirst/desire and its appropriate and inappropriate means of gratification as being one of the central problematics that the heavenly city is meant to address. The question of novelty/newness is, I think, at the heart of desire and whatever salvific transformations such desires may undergo. <br /><br />Also, for whatever its worth, I personally prefer the plural "they have come to pass" to the singular "it is done" because the former seems to leave more room for something additional to come next. Rather sounding like "it (everything!) is done," it sounds like "these things here are taken care of."<br /><br />Again, though, I'll try to offer some comments of my own on these verses in an additional post.Adam Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14276201812948999287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5451417953885022907.post-5651669870871003322009-06-03T10:10:28.320-07:002009-06-03T10:10:28.320-07:00Aha! There is indeed a textual variant in v. 6. ...Aha! There is indeed a textual variant in v. 6. I'm at work, but just from poking around on the internet there appear to be three variants:<br /><br />1. gegonan reflects the Alexandrian text (Tischendorf; Westcott-Hort).<br /><br />2. gegona reflects the Byzantine majority text.<br /><br />3. gegonen reflects the Textus Receptus (both Stephens 1550 and Scrivener 1894).<br /><br />I was at work and looking at the Blue Letter Bible, which reflects the TR underlying the KJV. The singular is also reflected in the Vulgate's factum est.<br /><br />Assuming that we follow the Alexandrian reading, then you're right, instead of "it is done" it would be plural and something like "they have come to pass."<br /><br />I wonder whether the "they" could be the "faithful words" just spoken of?Kevin Barneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06774072688770536035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5451417953885022907.post-51401677739294788422009-06-01T18:16:36.645-07:002009-06-01T18:16:36.645-07:00Kevin, NA26 and the two online texts I use have ge...Kevin, NA26 and the two online texts I use have gegonan, not gegonen. Is there a textual variant there?Julie M. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03456186082820859709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5451417953885022907.post-86624832847686237612009-06-01T13:55:46.224-07:002009-06-01T13:55:46.224-07:00Thanks for your comments, Julie and Kevin.
Resp...Thanks for your comments, Julie and Kevin. <br /><br />Responding to Julie’s comments: the “to hand” I’m thinking of is a play on our English way of framing doing in relation to time and space. “At hand” tends to suggest that one is about to grasp something that is near; “in hand” suggests that one already has it in grasp, and “to hand” (though sometimes used as s synonym for “at hand”) refers to the moment of coming-into, with implications of labor and servitude. So what I’m toying with here is the idea that the Kingdom of Heaven is both “at hand” (can be grasped soon) and “to hand” (is emerging as our labors serve God). <br /><br />Now you’ve got me thinking, though, about other related possibilities regarding the theological implications of the English translation, especially the KJV. The 17th century poet George Herbert has a great poem in which he plays on the meaning of “hand” as used in a card game (what one has been dealt, and the chances one is willing to take in relation to desire – or in our case, “thirst”) and “hand” as in the nearness of God’s kingdom. Given the significance of writing in this passage, another English use of “hand” can be meaningful: one’s hand referring to the peculiar identifying characteristics of one’s own writing, especially writing as attestation (as in signing a will or other legal device for inheritance). Hands also represent capacity, agency, will. I’m still thinking in 16th and 17th century terms, in which “hand” can also mean a way, or tendency, or direction (as in “a mending hand”). If I push the inheritance metaphor, a use of “hand” still current when the KJV was being polished (but now archaic) is economic and refers to the outcome of bartering, the final cost (“best hand” vs. “better hand” vs. “dear hand”). <br /><br />This might all suggest something like this: to say that God’s kingdom is “at hand” and “to hand” is to say that <br /><br />(1) certain kinds of labor and servitude instantiate the “coming-into” (reality? material expression? full comprehension?) of God’s kingdom. In this sense, the Kingdom is not fully future nor is it fully present;<br /><br />(2) this “coming-into” requires attestation, but attestation in distinctively identifiable terms – what identifies the Kingdom are the distinctive or peculiar characteristics of the signatories. God’s peculiar signature ratifies the final cost (the “dear hand” of Jesus’s ministry and sacrifice) of the inheritance for his children, yet the distinctive attestation of those very children is also required – in terms of their distinctive capacities – before the inheritance to be received;<br /><br />(3) these distinctive capacities must in turn create a way, direction, or tendency that allows agency, desire, and will to clasp others the way God wants them to be grasped/embraced (another archaic use of “hand” = arm). This would probably be a good place to wrestle with Levinas and Ricoeur (which I won’t do just now, but it occurs to me that the “at hand” modifier for the Kingdom of Heaven might be usefully amplified by some of Ricoeur’s ideas on recognition). <br /><br />Also, Julie, I do think you caught me taking for granted the “obvious” movement from inheritance imagery back to the bride imagery. To me, this seemed a natural shift given that the Bride in some sense will give birth to the children who inherit. Or more generally, she makes inheritance possible. Certainly there are interesting symbolic possibilities involved with understanding “writing” as regenerative, and perhaps even as another avatar of the Bride (a nice parallel to the function of “Word” at the beginning of Revelation). <br /><br />In this regard, though, I’d like you to say more about how Isaiah 65:17 as complicates Revelation’s use of “writing” and “making new” in what you see as especially interesting ways. <br /><br />Kevin, I like your comment on the word ‘emeth. I’d like to think about this in terms of the limitations of language. I’ll post more later in response.Brandie Siegfriedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15309287867409236491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5451417953885022907.post-83148370645379926692009-06-01T10:29:20.286-07:002009-06-01T10:29:20.286-07:00Julie, how are you getting a plural "they are done...Julie, how are you getting a plural "they are done" out of gegonen in v. 6? That looks singular to me.<br /><br />The Alpha and Omega thing always makes me think of the Hebrew word for "truth, faithfulness, firmness," which is 'emeth. That word begins with the first letter of the alphabet, aleph, followed by a letter in the middle of the alphabet, mem, and concluded by the last letter of the alphabet, taw. So visually that word represents the beginning, the end, and all tha is in between, or knowledge of things as they were, as the are and as they are to come.<br /><br />The "I will be his God, and he shall be my son" suggests a theosis concept to me.Kevin Barneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06774072688770536035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5451417953885022907.post-35028856769912499082009-05-31T14:31:47.020-07:002009-05-31T14:31:47.020-07:00Thanks for this post.
"These feasts and fountains...Thanks for this post.<br /><br />"These feasts and fountains suggest a delightful paradox: dependence on God is really the freedom of unrestrained growth."<br /><br />I love this.<br /><br />"In this sense, the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand -- or, in my reading, to hand."<br /><br />Can you say a little more about this?<br /><br />"Not surprisingly, the vision now moves from the prospect of inheritance back to "the bride, the Lamb’s wife." "<br /><br />Why don't you find this surprising? If I didn't hang on to my hat, I could get imagery whiplash in this chapter!<br /><br />Some random thoughts: <br /><br />--V5 seems to be borrowing from Isaiah 65:17. To me, this complicates the discussion of "writing" and "making new" in interesting ways. Also, after Isaiah has the line about making things new, there is this line: "and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind." I can't find that sentiment in Revelation; although perhaps I've missed it. I wonder if this is significant.<br /><br />--Another thought on v6's "It is done." The verb is plural, giving us "They are done." To what might the "they" refer? The words in v5? Or something else?<br /><br />--V7: there is a strong parallel between "I will be his God and he stall be my son" and v3's "God himself shall be with them," except that v7 is more personalized. (That is, an individual relationship instead of a corporate one.) I wonder if this communal to personal movement is reflected in other ways in this text.Julie M. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03456186082820859709noreply@blogger.com