Revelation 22:18-21

Text:

18. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book. 20. He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. 21. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen.

Comments:

Probably every Mormon missionary who has served within spitting distance of the Bible belt has heard this passage quoted as an argument against the Book of Mormon, to the effect that obviously there can be no more scripture after the Bible (for such would "add to" the Bible impermissibly). That argument of course is based on the presentist premise that "this book" is the Bible as a whole. In reality, of course, "this book" is a specific reference to the book of Revelation; the Bible as we know it today did not yet exist as such and would not exist in its present form for some centuries from the time those words were written.

But let's go ahead and correct the argument and restrict "this book" to Revelation. What does this say about the revisions of the JST? What about modern textual critics who make decisions about which words belong in the text and which do not? What about translators who make decisions about how the words and thought of the Apocalypse should be represented in another language? What about commentators? Indeed, what about this Mormon Theology Seminar itself? Have we been in violation of the curse formula for attempting to plumb the depths of what the author was trying to say in these chapters?

In an ancient legal setting that lacked the intellectual property protections of modern copyright law, such curse formulas and their appeals to the gods and divine retribution for meddling with one's text were a common literary device. We see a similar example from the Old Testament in Deuteronomy 4:2:

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye
diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

This ancient custom may perhaps be seen most clearly in the Letter of Aristeas 310-11, which describes a decision made when the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) was completed:

310 After the books had been read, the priests and the elders of the translators and the Jewish community and the leaders of the people stood up and said, that since so excellent and sacred and accurate a translation had been made, it was only right that it should remain as it was and no 311 alteration should be made in it. And when the whole company expressed their approval, they bade them pronounce a curse in accordance with their custom upon any one who should make any alteration either by adding anything or changing in any way whatever any of the words which had been written or making any omission. This was a very wise precaution to ensure that the book might be preserved for all the future time unchanged.

In the first instance, this warning was not addressed to future scribes, translators or commentators, but to those members of the seven churches to whom the book was directed, "to everyone who hears" the words of the book. (Note that the KJV's use of "man" in these verses should be translated in a gender neutral fashion.) We tend to imagine that in antiquity people had their own copy of the scriptures and read them personally the way you and I do today. But no, most people experienced the scriptures by hearing them read vocally in groups, and doubtless that is the way the words of this book would have first been experienced by those first hearers. Of course, the curse formula may also be read more broadly as applying to any (including future) attempt to wilfully distort the message of the book. So in my view, those who have attempted to establish the text, to translate that text, and to comment on the text in an effort to understand it correctly (including, yes, the JST) are not guilty of violating the curse formula.

In my opening salvo in this blog series, I pointed out that some scholars are of the view that the contents of our chapters originally appeared in a different order and have been somewhat scrambled. These scholars consider these curse formula verses to be a later addition to the text. The late David Noel Freedman, editor in chief of the Anchor Bible series, commented wryly in correspondence to the author of the Revelation volume in that series on the extreme irony that the curse formula prohibiting additons to the text was (if those scholars are correct) itself just such an addition to the text!

We Mormons are big on testimony and this passage is framed as such a witness. The antecedent to the pronoun I in "I testify" that begins our passage is Jesus (from v. 16 "I Jesus"), and so it is the Savior himself who is saying these words.

One of the joys of reading the text in Greek is being able to see how words are used and how over time many of those words have come into our language. For instance, the "I testify" we have just described is marturO egO. The verb has come into English as the word "martyr," one who suffers death for her unwillingness to recant her witness, and the pronoun egO "I" has come into English as the word "ego." The "plagues" mentioned later in the verse are an English derivative of the Greek word used here, plEgas. For anyone who enjoys words, this is a fun exercise to trace the English derivatives and cognates of the Greek, and to me it sort of helps to make the text come alive.

There is an important textual variant in v. 19. The reference there to the "book of life" should be to the "tree of life." I am going to focus on this variant in my presentation at our in-person conference in Austin, Texas on September 25th; the title of my paper will be "A Book or a Tree? The Erasmian Variant in Revelation 22:19." So I won't say more on that subject here; if you are intrigued by the difference between a book of life and a tree of life in this passage, then by all means please come to the conference.

The KJV wording of the last two verses reflects some elaborations in the text that accrued over time. The original likely was simpler, something as follows (NRSV):

20. The one who testifies to these things says, ‘Surely I am coming soon.’
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!
21. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints. Amen.*

I was particularly intrigued by the "Come, Lord Jesus!" This appears to be a translation of the Aramaic expression found in 1 Cor. 16:22, which is transliterated through Greek into English as a single word, maranatha. In Aramaic, this is two words, although precisely how they should be divided is somewhat uncertain: either maran atha or marana tha. The mar means "lord," the -an or -ana is the first person plural pronominal suffix meaning "our," and the tha or atha is some form of the verb meaning "to come," usually taken as a perfect "Our Lord has come!" or, as here, as an imperative "Our Lord, come!" This Aramaic expression appears to have been in common use among early Christians.

Thus endeth the formal blog commentary (although comments will continue to be posted). I'll look forward to seeing many of you in Austin come September 25!

Revelation 22: 12-17

12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. 14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. 16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. 17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is a-thirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Commentary

Verse 12: Stresses the immediacy of consequences or "reward" in relation to "work" or deeds. I like the exclamatory "See" of the NRSV. For a modern audience, it better links the idea of coming-to-awareness (looking and understanding) with the forms of expression (words, writing, etc) that the alphabetical analogy in the next verse invokes. It’s a link by which personal rewards find their meaning (as holiness) when they are folded into relation.

Verse 13: "Alpha and Omega" brings the immediacy of consequences into the divine order. It also repeats the thematic connection developed throughout the book, linking letters (the rudiments of expression and history, the parts of speech by which words/worlds are made) to divine temporal and spacial orders or sets (beginning and end, first and last).

Verse 14: In the KJV rendering, blessedness is the consequence of mindful enactment of the law (those who "do his commandments") which as Leviticus teaches, culminates in the conditions of freedom (I discuss this in more detail below). This blessedness – this mindful extension of freedom – underscores the right to the tree of life, and grants passage into the New Jerusalem.

The NRSV, relying on different authority, begins the verse with "Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they will have the right to the tree of life . . ." This alternative suggests a cleansing, a renewal -- entering the city and eating the fruit of the tree of life is no casual event, but highly ceremonial. Acknowledging the many ways we might read the ordinance of baptism onto this verse, I instead take a different but related turn. In fact, I’d like to wind the KJV and NRSV together via the ideal of jubilee outlined in Leviticus.

By way of prelude, let’s begin with the ten commandments: Israel is invited to be free by means of a divine law without which, and left to themselves, would result in their falling back to the habit of slavery. Herbert McCabe has called the Mosaic law the "charter of liberation," beginning with God explaining, "I have brought you out of slavery . . ." and following with the manner by which to avoid various modes of future enslavement (modes far more subtle and common and easy than their experience under the Egyptians, and therefore more dangerous and immediately destructive).

Similarly, in his first recorded sermon, Jesus quotes Isaiah (who quoted Leviticus), saying that he has come to "proclaim release to the captives . . . ., to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour." He is referring to the year of Jubilee (Lev. 25: 8-55) when debts are forgiven, slaves released, and everyone begins anew in freedom. It was an ideal that stood as the antithesis of worldly cities where entire social, economic, and political systems (and for John, think Rome) rested upon domination of the poor by the rich, the weak by the strong, the humble by those who set themselves up as gods. I am always taken aback (being a child of U.S. capitalism) at just how delightfully radical the concept of jubilee is. But more importantly for my point here is that it was also called the day of Atonement, an extended sabbath for the people, and the land, and "unto the Lord."

In short, we might read the KJV’s "do his commandments" as synonymous with the NRSV’s "wash their robes" -- both are forms of ceremonial readiness for the New Jerusalem, for preparing for the sabbath, for the jubilation of atonement, and the celebration of God’s liberation.

Verse 15: Those that restrict true freedom are "without" the city -- in English, there is the double possibility of meaning both "outside the parameters of" and also "without benefit of" the freedoms offered by the city. The English translation suggests that there are, on the one hand, those who intentionally seek to limit the forms of divine freedom God has offered to humanity. Yet on the other hand, there seem to be those who are stymied by the paradox of ignorance: preparatory knowledge is required to enter the city, but the knowledge required is contingent on obedience to the laws of which these actors stand without benefit. The latter sense makes the invitation in verse 17 particularly poignant.

Verse 16: Jesus ratifies the symbolic iterations of the angelic messenger. The elision between "to you" and "in the churches" (KJV) makes explicit the public orientation of the prophetic/visionary content – this is not a private revelation, but revelatory poetics meant to provoke and inspire the community of the saints. Having repeated the theme of word/world, Jesus winds around it another theme that has been prominent throughout Revelation, that of the "root." Somehow, the architecture of the city is bound up with a specific orientation towards his role as creator: he is not merely the manufacturer of things (objects), but the "root" of ancestry, and the city is to be conceived of in these terms.

Jesus is also the "offspring," and if we want to link this to Adam’s point about divine deferral, we might take this to mean that while he typifies Divine power, that power is re-typified when others follow the law (and again, I am using law in the sense of actions that create the conditions for freedom and holiness). Being both root (tree) and offspring (fruit), Jesus anchors the actual world and its history to the transforming potential of holy capabilities. As D. Tutu and others have suggested, the miracle of repentance and forgiveness is that they transform the past. The facts of the past don’t change, but the meaning of the past – its formative effects in the lives of real people – does.

Verse 17: Spirit and Bride give a welcoming greeting; those that listen and seek and desire are singled out and especially welcomed. Freedom is again stressed, even celebrated, as the appropriate mode for dipping into the water of life. Of special note: the musicality of this verse creates a beautiful swelling of welcome – it begins with the duet of "Come!" by the Spirit and the Bride, and it gathers power as a chorus of "everyone who hears" sings "Come." And then, in a significant shift, the "let everyone who is thirsty come" – now heard as the dynamic harmony of Spirit, Bride, and Hearers – crescendos with the final line, "Let anyone who wishes, take the water of life as a gift." A gift. The city, the tree of life, the fruits of holiness, words and worlds, the water of life – all, a gift. This is why I hear the echoes of the year of jubilee throughout Revelation.

Revelation 22:8-11

8And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. 9Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God. 10And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. 11He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.


EXEGESIS

Because our examination has divided the text into manageable units that sometimes differ from other ways of dividing and outlining the text, I thought that it would be useful to first place this pericope (22:8-11), and some of the material treated by Adam in a slightly different framework in order to see its literary context perhaps a bit better, as well as allow us to make a few generic considerations.

Most divisions of Revelation see its final section or Epilogue as comprising 22:6-21. In a sense this final section revisits the kind of direct revelation to John in the Introduction (1:1-3) and the specific, individual direction to his readers that characterized the Letters to the Seven Churches (1:4-3:22). Indeed, there is a great deal of verbal resonance between the opening and closing sections of the apocalypse, and generically they form an epistolary frame for the whole work. Thus rather than just a series of symbolic visions as in the body of the apocalypse, here John is given specific instructions which he is implicitly instructed to write down and disseminate, as is suggested by the discussion of not sealing the prophecy (22:10) and repeated references throughout the Epilogue to the "book" and the "book of this prophecy."

While John's guide up to this point has been an angel, who was introduced in 21:9, his speaking the words of Christ creates a similar ambiguity to that which confronted John, and the readers, in 19:9-10. Indeed, while the angel is still technically the interlocutor in this passage, by the time we look at the material that Brandie will be treating this week (22:12-17), the speaker is unambiguously the risen Christ, "the Alpha and Omega." In this passage, the fact that it is an angel, rather than Jesus, who seems to be speaking makes little difference: the servants of God bear his name and speak his words.

In terms of the internal structure of the Epilogue, G.K. Beale sees it as consisting of five exhortations to holiness (vv. 6-7, 8-10, 11-12, 13-17, and 18-20) followed by a single verse conclusion (v. 21). While many other divisions of the epilogue have been advanced, and while most agree that there is no explicit flow of thought, the idea that it comprises as final exhortation for God's people to manifest "holy obedience" so that they can become heirs to the heavenly Jerusalem and the new earth that was the subject of the last vision seems clear. A repetition in 22:10 of the earlier idea that the time is at hand (see 1:3) adds to the sense of urgency that believers, whenever they may be living, must respond to the message of Revelation.

Notes

I John saw these things, and heard them. Here the emphasis on senses, seeing and hearing, is again prominent. The visions of John were an actual experience, and since the overarching message is of the person and work of the Risen Lord, there is a certain resonance with the opening testimony of 1 John 1:1: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life."

I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. The reasons for John's act here are somewhat more clear than in a similar moment in 19:9-10. At least here, in a vivid example of Talmage-esque "divine investiture of authority," the angel has just quoted, in first person, the words of Jesus: "Behold, I come quickly . . ." (22:7). Accordingly it is possible that John actually confused the angel with the person whose words he was quoting. Commentators, however, tend to focus more on the disorienting effect the fantastic visions have had on John.

Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not . . .worship God. Because of the emphasis on idolatry throughout the book, some have suggested that the angel's rebuke of John is a final message that none besides God alone, or perhaps Christ with God, are worthy or veneration or worship (See Beale, 1128).

I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book. Paralleling 19:10, the prophets here may well be those who have the testimony of Jesus, since "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." If one accepts that the revelation of Revelation is the unveiling of the risen, glorified Christ, those who keep the saying of this book are those who know Jesus for who he really is, who testify of that, and who are his at his coming.

Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book. Here a clear echo to the end of another apocalyptic book (or more correctly the ending of the apocalyptic section of a book) can be seen by comparing it to Daniel 12:4, where Daniel was commanded to seal up his book until the end. A similar injunction to seal something up was seen in the direction to seal the voice of the seven thunders in 10:4, but overall the thrust of 5:1-11:18, and by extension that of the whole book, has been to unveil and unseal.

For the time is at hand. A purely futurist interpretation of Revelation robs this expression of all sense. Clearly the time for the final wrapping up scene was not at hand at the time that John wrote Revelation, but an eclectic approach (and especially progressive dispensationalism) allows it to have meaning to readers in every age.

He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. This verse (really part of the third exhortation according to Beale's schema) is difficult grammatically, because the exhortations are, in Greek, actually imperatives and aorist imperatives at that. The aspect of the tense gives the sense not of continuing action but of instantly begun action or accomplished state (although this is tempered in each instance by the adverb eti, which is difficult to take as anything but "still" or "yet" although "further," meaning more than before, might work). A grammatical answer to this is that these imperatives may actually be what Wallace calls "conditional imperatives" (pp. 489-91)

The question, then, is whether this applies to a post-judgment state or, if the passage applies in every age.


EXPOSITION

Passing reference above to the standard LDS idea of "divine investiture of authority," has bearing on Latter-day Saint responses to verses 8-9, since an angel or prophet can in fact speak the very words of God or Christ as if he were the very deity acting or speaking. While this passage, and its parallel in 19:10, might serve as examples of the actual practice of such representational authority, members of our community might be well served by learning from the rebuke to John when he confused the message (and its originator) with the messenger: while we may respect, sustain, and even honor prophets and leaders, only God alone deserves worship of any kind.

The concept of sealed books, while here clearly resonant with Daniel, is important in other restoration scripture, especially the Book of Mormon. In fact the direction given to Nephi in 1 Nephi 14 (and presumably similar direction given to Mahonri Morinancumer and Moroni in regard to material associated with Ether) privileges the very text of John now under discussion.

Since Book of Mormon scripture and some of its concepts presumably were not available to John, parallels with that book are properly the realm of exposition not exegesis. Still, the idea of no unclean thing being able to enter the kingdom of God and a place being prepared for those who remain filthy (see 1 Nephi 15:33-34, 2 Nephi 9:16, Alma 7:21, etc.) illustrate an important doctrinal point suggested by 22:11. Especially if the imperatives of 22:11 are in fact conditional, readers are presented with a choice to be filthy or righteous. As the Lord, through his angel to John, exhorted his people to holiness, he was in fact applying the drama of the visions of Revelation to them: they could be with the Great Whore or the Living Christ.

Revelation 22:4-7

Verse 4: “They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads.”

I’m reminded by this passage of my favorite Psalm (the translation is Robert Alters):

One thing do I ask of the Lord,
it is this that I seek –
that I dwell in the house of the Lord
all the days of my life,
to behold the Lord’s sweetness
and to gaze on his palace. . . .

Hear, O Lord, my voice when I call,
and grant me grace and answer me.
Of you, my heart said: “Seek My face.”
Your face, Lord, I do seek.
Do not hide your face far from me
(Ps. 27:4, 7-8)

In general, however, I’m not sure where to begin with respect to the question of the “face.”

Here we have a face that is “seen” and no longer hidden by a veil of any kind. Yet (as in Emmanuel Levinas’ profound phenomenological analyses of the face-to-face encounter) there are few moments when we are more struck by the transcendent inaccessibility of the other person than when we are brought face to face with them.

In the other person’s absence it is not so difficult to pretend that we “know” them, have taken their measure, and have a handle on who they are. But, brought face to face with the other, this pretension evaporates.

Why? Because when we come face to face with the other, it is no longer the case that we are simply seeing them. Rather, face to face, we see them and we see ourselves being seen. Face to face, we find ourselves gripped by their inaccessible gaze. We discover that there is another perspective from which the world unfolds and that, in fact, we are not (as we pretend) the center of the universe.

There is a kind of nakedness in this revelation as we bear our own bareness in the eyes of the other. Exposed to what we see required of us (and from us) in the other’s face - exposed to our responsibility to them and for them - we are simultaneously exposed to what we cannot see in this face that exceeds us.

The revelatory intimacy of this face to face encounter hinges on just such an exposure: I both see and see myself being seen by something that I cannot see.

Of the immense number of things, then, that could be said about having “his name on our foreheads,” I’ll suggest only this: it is the essence of such a face to face encounter that it inscribes the other’s name in us.

Having seen their face, having seen ourselves being seen, we continue to bear both the other’s name and a responsibility for what that name/face revealed to us about them and ourselves. And here, insofar as God’s name is a metonym for every other face - “inasmuch as you’ve done it unto the least of these, you’ve done it unto me” - bearing God’s name on our foreheads means that we bear the name of all the other others who need assistance from us.

A final note: it is especially interesting that we bear this name in a place where it will be visible to everyone else we see . . . but, simultaneously, in a place where it is not visible to us. Our only access to this name (this name that we bear inscribed in our own flesh!) is through the eyes of others.

Verse 5: “And night will no longer be, and they have no need of the light of a lamp or the light of the sun because the Lord God will give forth light on them, and they will reign into the ages of the ages.”

This recapitulation of the promise already given in 21:23 nicely rounds out the end of the vision proper.

Verse 6-7: “And he said to me, ‘These words are faithful and true, and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place. Behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is the one keeping the words of the prophecy of this book.’”

These verses mark the end of the vision and the transition to the book’s “concluding sayings.” They call our attention back to the role of the messenger/angel, the status of the recipients as “servants,” and emphasize the imminence of all of the dread/beautiful events that were foretold.

“The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets” is an interesting locution. God is here identified as “the one who is on the side of the prophets.” Also, insofar as the “spirits” (pneumaton) are cognate with breath, we might hear an echo of God’s being on the side of the “breath” of the prophets (i.e., on the side of the words that they breathed out on God’s own behalf).

Interesting, also, that blessedness is here directly tied to a text/book. Righteous living in general is not addressed. Rather, blessedness is tied to “keeping” the words of the prophecy of the book. I’d like to address this further (in connection with the rest of what we’ve hinted about the importance of words, writing, texts, etc.), but I’m simply out of time. So, for the moment, I’ll simply lay down another (hopeful!) promissory marker with respect to this question.

Revelation 22:1-3

1: And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2: In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3: And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

Overview – This pericope ties the imagery of the holy city directly to the Garden of Eden. The water of life reminds the reader of the river proceeding “out of Eden to water the garden" (Gen 2:10-14). The water in the holy city waters the tree of life, just as the river in Eden watered the garden, in which was found the first tree of life. Finally, explicit reference to the “curse” (katathema – Gr.) is made. As Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden, God had placed a “curse” (arur – Heb.) upon the ground, that it would bring forth thorns and thistles. The world became a wilderness and the effects of this curse were mentioned with regularity by biblical authors and prophets. When the people returned to God, prophets promised a reversal of the effects of the curse, and promises were made that in the last days the land would return to its Edenic, pre-curse state. Instead of the land making life more difficult for the descendants of Adam and Eve, it could support them and even heal them, as with the leaves of the tree of life (vs. 2).

A good example of this curse reversal is found in Isaiah 55:7-13 – “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon… Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir tree, and instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle tree: and it shall be to the Lord for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.” Another example of curse reversal shows how water could heal a dry wilderness. This example is found in connection with a reversal of the difficulty of child birth that came to Eve as a result of the fall – “Thus saith the Lord…. Fear not, O Jacob, my servant…. For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring: And they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the water courses" (Is 44:2-4).

In these verses from Revelation, the curse has truly been reversed. The sorrows and pains promised to Eve (Gen 3:16) are taken away as “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain,: for the former things are done away. (21:4)” The “former things” have been reversed as well in the ability of the ground to bring forth life without the toil and sweat of man, as with the tree of life found in the midst of the city.

Verse 1 – and he showed me This section begins with a reminder that there is an angelic tour guide for John’s vision of the holy city. This is the third time that the angel, who was one of the seven angels holding the seven vials of plagues (21:9), has been mentioned. As discussed earlier, Nephi is also guided in his vision by an angel who constantly points out different items of import (compare the angel’s commands to “Look!” in 1 Ne 11 with “And he shewed me” of Rev 22). Ezekiel also had an angelic guide in his vision of a temple that had many characteristics in common with the holy city of Revelation – flowing water, specific measurements, etc. What is the importance of the heavenly guide? Does his presence signify that the nature of the city is far above that of a temporal city and is not the type of location that could be accessed by an earthly explorer? Does his presence indicate that God has authorized this vision, or that God wants to make sure that the vision is viewed and understood correctly? If the holy city symbolizes a return to the paradise of Eden, then the angel might be considered necessary. Since cherubim were placed to guard the way to the tree of life, as a result of the curse on Adam and Eve, then theoretically an angel would be required to permit access back to the tree of life.

Verses 1 & 2 – water of life (vs. 1); tree of life (vs. 2) The images of nature, life, and motion represented by the water of life and the tree of life soften the angular, brilliant beauty of the perfectly-proportioned city. This is a city that can be lived in. It is not just a perfected, modern, cement-city devoid of any evidences of God’s creation, but instead contains central reminders of the creation and the Garden of Eden story. The water flows from the throne of God, much like water flows from the temple in Ezekiel’s vision (Ez 47:1). There has been quite a bit of excellent discussion about whether the image of Rev 21-22 is anti-temple, since it replaces the Old Testament version of the temple as a central source of communal life with God and the Lamb as the central source of life. The author of Revelation purposefully connected the images of his vision with those of Ezekiel’s temple vision (Ezekiel 40-48). To me it seems that he did this not to discount or discredit the earlier, temple-centered vision, but to show the perfect realization and triumph of the symbolic truths offered by the temple – that God can dwell in the midst of his people and that the chaos of a fallen world can be conquered by the order and beauty of the heavens.

Verse 1 – clear as crystal Enough comments have been offered already on the “clear” color and quality of the gold of the holy city. This recurring quality, connected now with the waters of life, reveals it as a very important image for the author. Could the clearness symbolize clarity, sight, and even clairvoyance (a power required if one is to have a vision of heavenly things)? The LDS reader might be reminded of the opposite imagery in Lehi’s vision of the fountain of water that ran near to the tree of life. In Lehi’s/Nephi’s vision, the waters were “filthy” (1 Ne 12:16), were repugnant to Nephi, and symbolized the depths of hell. Nephi’s later love of simplicity and clarity might have some connection to the repugnance of these hellish waters, as might his focus on the importance of the sanctifying waters of baptism (2 Ne 31:4-6). It is interesting that when discussing the importance of entering into the waters of baptism he referred back to images he had seen in his pivotal vision.

Verse 2 – in the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, the tree of life Like the pearls/gates of Rev 21:21, this is a difficult image for me to mentally solidify. The tree is in the middle of the street (also from 21:21). It is also on either side of the river, but it is seems to be one tree (xulon) in the singular (in contrast to the connected image from Ez 47:12, that has many trees growing on both sides of the river, with fruit that lasts through the seasons and leaves that are for medicine). The tree of Rev 22:2 appears to be in more places than is physically possible. Does the river run down both sides of the road, and a gigantic tree (picture redwood forests, but bigger) span them all? Does the road follow along both sides of the river and the tree spans the river, but not the road, thus standing in the middle of the road? Does the road cross the river as a bridge, with the river running through the middle of the tree (so that the tree can be on either side of the river) and the bridge splitting in two so that the tree can be in its center? Does the tree send out shoots, so that there are numerous trees that are only one tree? This type of concrete solidifying of the vision appears to be almost impossible, and may be exactly what the description was designed to prevent. The tree is almost ubiquitous, and becomes a dominant image in the city. It is also connected with the image of the street/way and the water of life in a way that emphasizes their interdependence. I am reminded of the famous verse from John 14:6, when Christ describes himself as “the way, the truth, and they life.” He is all of these things at the same time, and the life-giving tree, the street that guides to God and the Lamb and its center, and the renewing river of water all symbolize together the multi-faceted joys and glories of celestial redemption and eternal life with God. These three images could also be seen as symbolic manifestations or descriptions of God and the Lamb, who stand at the center of the city. Either from an LDS viewpoint, or from the perspective of traditional Christianity, these three images would be a beautiful way to describe the unity and uniqueness of each member of the Godhead.

Verse 2 – twelve fruits… and the leaves of the tree for the healing of the nations The number “twelve” is emphasized again here. This time a new connection to the repeating cycle of twelve months is given, in addition to the previous connections with the tribes of Israel and the apostles of the Lamb. Are Israel and the apostles (the destinies of God’s Old and New Testament organizations?) to be woven inextricably into the eternal cycle of time? It is somewhat surprising that months and time are even alluded to in a heavenly city where the light of God’s glory never sets. However, mentioning months and the constant flowering of the tree can serve as a reminder that there is a new order of things now -- the ongoing progression of months doesn’t lead to winter and death, but instead the tree continues producing fruit throughout the year.

The image of the tree of life is a persistent one in many world religions, and also becomes important in the story of the Book of Mormon. How does this tree of life in the holy city compare to the tree of life in the Garden of Eden, that had to be guarded by cherubim? How does it compare to the burning bush of Moses’ vision, with God in the midst of the bush? How does it compare to the tree of life in Lehi’s/Nephi’s dream/vision, that people approached after considerable effort, that produced a fruit “desirable above all other fruits,” and that people could abandon even after having partaken of its fruit? How does it compare to the tree of Alma 32, that grows within an individual after the planting and nourishing of a seed, and that also produces fruit in the end? There is a lot of room for “fruitful” discussion, I believe, in analyzing the similarities and differences in these different manifestations of the tree of life.

Verse 3 – the throne of God At the focal point of the tabernacle was found the ark of the covenant, also known as the mercy seat, symbolizing God’s presence. Inside of the mercy seat were found stone tablets containing the law of Moses, Aaron’s rod that had miraculously bloomed, and manna from the trek through the wilderness. These objects teach what the presence of God does, since it was His power and presence that allowed them to come among the children of Israel. God provides law and order in the midst of chaos, as symbolized by the stone tablets. He provides new life, even on a rod that could not possibly bloom any longer. He provides food in the midst of the wilderness. Even so the throne of God in the holy city is found to give evidence that the curse has been done away with. God provides order (as the symbol of a kingly throne demonstrates), food (from the tree of life), and life (from the flowing waters).

Revelation 21:24-27

24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

The phrase "of them which are saved" is not in the best ancient manuscripts. My guess is that that phrase was added by someone used to the biblical idea that "the nations" means "people who are not part of the covenant" and therefore found this verse in need of some explanation. Yet without that phrase, there is some nice poetic parallelism in this verse:

And the nations / shall walk / in the light of it
And the kings of the earth / do bring their glory and honor / into it.

Both nations and earthly kings are usual enemies of the covenant people, but the reversal of this new city is so complete that these groups live by its light and, instead of hoarding glory to themselves, empty out their glory into the city. There is no more opposition; the usual opponents are now on the side of the righteous. I think it is more effective to take this verse as a symbolic indication of complete reversal of expected human behavior--applicable to all aspects of life--than to read it as solely political and literal.

Do we understand the kings to be actually entering into the city? Is the light of the city extending outside of the city (for the nations to walk in)? Or are the nations in the city? If the nations and/or kings are in the city, this is an even more challenging verse for the biblical worldview.

25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

(This may impinge on our discussion of the pearl gates: they are something that can be closed, but in reality they never are.)

"By day" means "any day." In other words, the city is under no threat from the outside that would necessitate closing the gates. (Even with all of those kings and nations loitering around the place!) (This verse also pictures the fulfillment of Isaiah 60:11). And nighttime, the usual time of threat and attack, doesn't even exist! The light is so great that the night has no sway. This verse emphasizes the light without even mentioning it.

26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

This is a curious verse with its echo of the end of v24. Literarily, it works quite well since the city of v25 is literally surrounded in v24 and v26 with references to entry into it. There's also a bit of a chiasm formed:

A And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it:
B and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
C And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day:
C' for there shall be no night there.
B' And they shall bring the glory and honour
A' of the nations into it.

If we read it this way, then the repetition from v24 to v26 serves to emphasize the parallelism between the two phrases of v24 and encourages us to reconsider what "and the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day" has to do with "for there shall be no night there." Those two phrases have a nice bit of antithetic parallelism due to the references to "night" and "day." There is something about that line, however, that I can't quite get my mind around: why does the absence of night explain why the gates are not closed during the day?

27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

No unclean person enters, and yet the gates are never closed. They are not physically restrained.

The second phrase doesn't make reference to those who are clean or pure, as we might expect in an antithetical verse such as this one, but rather to those whose names are written. Having your name written is the opposite of being defiled. Perhaps this points to the idea that we do not make ourselves clean, but it is only through the mediating action of the Lamb. And what of the book? Why would writing names in a book be a good metaphor for his atoning actions?

We've had several threads of text related to the idea of writing . . . perhaps someone should weave those into a paper.

Revelation 21:21-23

Verse 21

"And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass."

The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery notes regarding pearls that they were known for their “beauty, value, and permanence.”

It also, notes, however, that the lavishness of pearls is often associated with the ungodly. Compare, for instance, Revelation 18:12 where the whore of Babylon is characterized as trafficking in “the merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls.” In this latter connection, the use of such jewelry as kind of “cover” for one’s insufficiency is obvious, the pearl functioning as an “shiny” distraction from the poor substance of that which it bedecks. Also, the pearl, for the whore, is an object of commerce: its value allows for the circulation of Babylonian power throughout the commercial body of its empire.

In these verses, though, the pearl has been recouped. To what end? Primarily to my mystification as to the precise image being proposed :)

Each of the twelve gates are twelve pearls.

Are these giant, seven-foot-round pearls?

By gate do we simply mean an entrance way through the wall (with a pearl framing for the negative space)? Or are we talking about a gate as a door that can swing open and shut? Is a seven-foot-round pearl here placed on hinges? Maybe we are talking about the gate being made from a “slice” or portion of such a pearl?

I honestly don’t know.

It is interesting, though, to note the way that such pearls (if they are seven-foot round pearls) would devalue the whore’s pearls as merchandise or currency. “Pearls, you foolish whore, are for gates! Don't sell your soul for them!”

Here, in the new city, all such things are rendered “price-less” (or, even, as a result, “worth-less”). Without an assignable value, without the value-pumping assistance of scarcity as a controlled, trafficked, and hoarded resource, the pearl simply shines as what it is: something beautiful, hard, and shiny. Use it as a gate, if you want.

Further, Julie has already raised the issue of “transparent” gold, but it is additionally interesting in this verse that “the street of the city is pure gold.” Note that “street” is here singular rather than plural: “the [one?] street of the city is pure gold."

Why just singular here? Because there is only one “way,” one “truth,” one “life”? Because there is only one place worth going in the city: straight into the presence of God? And this is the road that will take you there?

Verse 22

"And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it."

The New Interpreter’s Bible notes that “the absence of a temple in the New Jerusalem reflects the triumph of a persistent critical attitude toward temple worship” (725). It then recounts how, from the start, the temple was compromised by Israel’s susceptibility to various local forms of cultic worship such that the temple cult was, from its inception, contaminated by “foreign” influences. This ambivalence toward the temple was also coupled with a deep prophetic ambivalence toward the monarchy itself.

The NIB also notes that, in a similar fashion, in Jesus’ day, the temple could remain functional only through collusion with the Roman occupation. The temple, rather than being the “pristine” seat of God’s presence, pure of any external defilement, ends up implicating – in its very stones - the powers and problems and defilements of this world. Thus, its absence from the New Jerusalem may mark a definitive end to this bastardization of true worship.

In this same spirit, Karl Barth contrasts the temple with the tabernacle: “the church of the Bible is, significantly, the Tabernacle, the portable tent. The moment it becomes a Temple, it becomes essentially an object of attack” (NIB, 726). Here, the universal “portability” of God’s presence is contrasted with the controlled localization of God’s presence under the banner of a single nation, a single city, and an exclusive ruling power. God’s "temple" is properly a tabernacle, a “moveable feast” that is capable of coming to the orphan and the widow.

Also of interest, here, is the claim that God and the Lamb are the temple of the new city. Does this simply mark the collapse of a symbolic distance: the temple was meant to symbolically re-present the presence of God but, in light of God’s actual presence, the re-presentation of this symbol is subsumed?

Also, is it significant that God and the Lamb are the temple? The one (single) temple is constructed on the basis of a relationship, on the basis of a “sealed” plurality? Could God alone be his own temple? Could the Lamb alone be his own temple? Or, properly speaking, must the temple be God and the Lamb? The temple hinging on the vitality of this “and”?

If so, this may give us a way to think about the connection of this image with our contemporary conception of temples. For Mormons, the temple is essentially a complex apparatus of conjunction: its purpose is to gather and seal, gather and seal, Adam and Eve and Abel and Seth and . . . and . . . and. . .

Is the contemporary temple more like a tabernacle than the temple in Jerusalem? Is there a sense in which our temples are “portable,” wandering the earth, dotting the face of the whole planet, spreading out into every corner of the globe? Do our temples function as machines for de-centralizing the church and re-distributing sacrality away from one particular place and one particular people and into the local lives of whatever people need to be conjoined, privileging always the conjunction itself as the site of holiness?

Verse 23

"And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof."

A fantastic image. Note that the passage does not say that the sun and moon have “gone away” but that the city doesn’t need them. The light of the sun, in the presence of God, is swallowed up like the light from a light bulb with the arrival of the noonday sun?

Also, should we take the two final phrases as synonymous? The glory of God lightening the city = the Lamb being the light of it? Or does the second phrase qualify and articulate the nature of God’s glory: the glory of God that lightens the city is the Lamb? Here, again, foregrounding the importance of the “and” that conjoins God and the Lamb: God’s glory is (not his own) but (the other,) the Lamb?