The Co-textual Flow of the First Paragraph (Rev 1:1-3)

The inner cohesion of the first micro-paragraph (Rev 1:1-2) is found in its chiastic-concentric structure39 which is framed not only by the symmetric connections of its lexical items but also by the semantic relations between the syntactic structures of the embedded cola.

The titular phrase avpoka,luyij VIhsou/ Cristou/ that is used to refer to a revelatory

experience of the entire book is characterized as ‘the words of prophecy’ (colon 1a; cf. colon 3).40 This notion is reinforced and specified by the use of appositional phrases and a clause that are virtually equated at the end of the unit (colon 2b) – to.n lo,gon tou/ qeou/, th.n marturi,an VIhsou/ Cristou/, and o[sa ei=den. The symmetric use of ‘the word of God’ enhances the prophetic nuance implied in the titular phrase since it signifies the prophetic formula “the word of the Lord” (hw"ßhy>-rb;d>) and its signified concept.41 The titular phrase is further defined as ‘the witness

39

Some various chiastic-concentric structures of Rev 1:1-2 have also been suggested by some scholars, e.g., Malina and Pilch, 2000, 263; Taeger, 2003, 181; de Smidt, 2004, 186-88. Although their structures are slightly

different, most of them put the relative clausea] dei/ gene,sqai evn ta,ceiin their central parts, except for Taeger’s. De

Smidt’s excessive analytic configuration of cola seems to make his chiastic inclusioless semantic – he seems to

arrange it based on a lexical connection. A weakness of his structure is that it cannot appropriately explain the

functional slots ofkai. evsh,manen ando[sa ei=den within the chiastic inclusio. A weakness of Taeger’s “chiastisch-

konzentrische Aufbau” is that there is no clear lexical connection between C (kai. evsh,manen…dia. tou/ avgge,lou…)

and C´ (o]j evmartu,rhsen). Furthermore, they have different subjects – the subject ofevsh,manenis God, whereas the

subject ofevmartu,rhsenis John. Malina and Pilch’s structure is basically acceptable; however, it is too fragmentary: A

(revelation), B (of Jesus Christ), C (God), D (show to his slaves), E (what has to happen soon), D´ (make known to his slave John), C´ (word of God), B´ (witness of Jesus Christ), A´ (whatever he saw).

40 _{Cf. 1 Cor 14:6. John’s identification of the expressionavpoka,luyij VIhsou/ Cristou/ withtou.j lo,gouj th/j}

profhtei,ajimplies that he does not use the term ‘apocalypse’ as belonging to a literary genre. Aune, 1997, 12.

41

of Jesus Christ’ in a judicial sense.42 The genitive phrase VIhsou/ Cristou/, which can be

understood either as a subjective genitive or an objective genitive, qualifies the word th.n

marturi,an that is often used as a lawsuit motif in the NT (cf. Rev 20:4; 3:14; 6:9-10; John

18:37; I Tim 6:13; 1 John 5:9).43 The expression ‘the revelation of Jesus Christ’ is further

clarified by its parallel expressions to.n lo,gon tou/ qeou/, th.n marturi,an VIhsou/ Cristou/ which

are appositively subordinated to the verb evmartu,rhsen. These two appositional phrases are

qualified by the clauseo[sa ei=den which is also subordinated to the same verb: The clause o[sa ei=den not only specifies the visionary manner of ‘the revelation of Jesus Christ’ but also reinforces its judicial sense in connection with the verbevmartu,rhsen.

The two clauses h]n e;dwken auvtw/| o` qeo.j dei/xai toi/j dou,loij auvtou/ (colon 1b) and

evsh,manen avpostei,laj dia. tou/ avgge,lou auvtou/ tw/| dou,lw| auvtou/ VIwa,nnh| (colon 2a) are semantically complementary and denote the communicational way by which the revelation is

transmitted to the final recipients. Colon 1b denotes the revelatory chain: GodJesusHis

servants.44 In parallel and complementarily colon 2a explains again the revelatory chain by

adding other mediators to it: GodHis angelHis servant John. Therefore, based on this

complementary structure, an overall revelatory chain can be drawn in this way:

GodJesusHis angelHis servant JohnHis servants. This complementary parallelism is

further substantiated by the use of the key verbsdei,knumi(colon 1b) andshmai,nw (colon 2a) in relation to the final recipient(s) in the same semantic domain.45

which signals a prophecy in the OT (e.g., Ezr 1:1; Jer 1:2; Ezek 1:3; Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1; Mic 1:1; Zep 1:1; Hag 1:1).

42

The prophetic nuance is still maintained in the expression of ‘the witness of Jesus Christ’ since the phrase also defines the immediately preceding phrase ‘the word of God’ (cf. Rev 19:10).

43

Even if we take the phraseVIhsou/ Cristou as an objective genitive, the judicial sense is not diminished

since ‘the testimony to Jesus’ is designed to be presented by John’s eyewitness testimony (evmartu,rhsen...o[sa ei=den).

The witness to Jesus Christ often includes the eyewitness testimony in the NT (John 1:7, 34; 19:35; Acts 2:32; 3:15; 5:32). See also Lincoln, 2000, 344-345.

44

The phrase “His servants” (toi/j dou,loij auvtou/) is used to refer to God’s prophets (Rev 11:18; cf. 1QS Col.

1:1; 4QpHosb_{Col. 2:5; 4Q390 Frag. 2 Col. 1:5) as well as to all believers or martyrs in Revelation (Rev 2:20; 7:3;}

19:2, 5; 22:3). In light of this broad usage of the term, we may regard the final recipients as the seven churches. Contra. Ford, 1975, 373.

45

Thus, cola 1ab and 2ab are in a chiastic relation by the lexical connections as well as by

the semantic relations of the complementary parallel. More significantly, the clause a] dei/

gene,sqai evn ta,cei(colon 1c) is highlighted by the chiastic parallel structure being placed in the midst of the explanation of the revelatory characters and the communicational way. This central

part connotes the content of the book as “a divinely decreed ordering of that which musttake

place”46 with the imminent temporal framework (evn ta,cei).

To sum up, the revelatory character and communicational way implied in colon 1ab are further clarified in colon2ab. Therefore, the semantic relationship of ‘thesis and clarified thesis’ is found between them. Based on the chiastic-concentric structure, it may be said that its focal point is to introduce preliminarily the content of the revelation. The above argument can be summarized in the following diagrammatic analysis:

Verse Colon Semantic

Configuration47 Relations

1:1 1aVApoka,luyij VIhsou/ Cristou/ A

1bh]n e;dwken auvtw/| o` qeo.j dei/xai toi/j dou,loij auvtou/ thesis B

1c a] dei/ gene,sqai evn ta,cei( C

2akai. evsh,manen avpostei,laj dia. tou/ avgge,lou auvtou/ tw/| dou,lw| auvtou/ VIwa,nnh|( clari. thesis B´

1:2 2bo]j evmartu,rhsen to.n lo,gon tou/ qeou/ kai. th.n marturi,an VIhsou/ Cristou/ o[sa ei=denÅ A´

The second micro-paragraph (Rev 1:3) is framed in the solemn form of a macarism. The syntactic structure of the macarism consists of a protasis and a apodosis: The threefold statement of blessing (maka,rioj o` avnaginw,skwn … kai. oi` avkou,ontej … kai. throu/ntej …) is

“Interpret, Mean, Explain”. Louw and Nida, 1989, 405-406.

46

Mounce, 1998, 41. See also Swete, 1906, 2; Beckwith, 1919, 419; Riss, 1965, 33. For further discussion of the clause (colon 1c) in relation to its OT background, see section ‘4.4.1. Spatial and Temporal Aspects in Rev 2-3’ in this thesis.

47

substantiated by the dependent causal clause (o` ga.r kairo.j evggu,j).48 These two clauses, therefore, form the semantic relationship of ‘thesis and reason’, as the following diagram shows:

Verse Colon Semantic

Configuration Relations

1:3 3a Maka,rioj o` avnaginw,skwn thesis

3b kai. oi` avkou,ontej tou.j lo,gouj th/j profhtei,aj protasis

3c kai. throu/ntej ta. evn auvth/| gegramme,na(

3d o` ga.r kairo.j evggu,jÅ apodosis reason

The three present substantival participles comprise appositionally the threefold statement of

blessing and convey the concept of obedience to the audience. The first two participles, o`

avnaginw,skwn and oi` avkou,ontej, are not necessarily understood to have a separate meaning. Rather, they can be regarded as a hendiadys which is used to denote the audience’s attitude to ‘the words of the prophecy’ in a liturgical setting. The nuance of the obedience implied in the hendiadys is heightened by the third substantival participle throu/ntej. It shares the definite articleoi` with the second substantival participle, not only because the word itself more directly conveys the nuance of the obedience to the audience, but also because its immediate objective relative clause,ta. evn auvth/| gegramme,na, seems to more emphatically denote the contents of the

prophecy than the preceding objective reference of the hendiadys – tou.j lo,gouj th/j

profhtei,aj.49 Thus, the threefold statement of blessing paraenetically implies overtones of a mitigative imperative. In this sense, we may call the threefold statement aparaenetic imperative.

The co-textual emphasis within the paraenetic imperative is upon the third statementthrou/ntej

48

A coordinate conjunction ga.r is used as an explanatory conjunction which links the apodosis to the

preceding protasis, explaining why those who obey the words of the prophecy are blessed.

49

The expression tou.j lo,gouj th/j profhtei,aj is to be understood as the written text in light of the latter

objective referencethrou/ntej ta. evn auvth/| gegramme,na(cf. Rev 22:7). The latter expression seems to emphasize the

ta. evn auvth/| gegramme,na. This is confirmed by the parallel macarism at the end of the book that employs only a single substantival participle, o` thrw/n, with reference to the written form of prophecy for the statement of blessing (Rev 22:7). The imminent temporal expression of the apodosis serves as a basis for the paraenetic imperative of the protasis.

Based on the above investigation, we will now examine the co-textual relations between the first and second micro-paragraphs. Two significant lexical connections are found between them: (1) the expression tou.j lo,gouj th/j profhtei,ajin the macarism takes up semantically the previous prophecy-related expressions in cola 1ab and 2ab – ‘the revelation of Jesus Christ’, ‘the word of God’, ‘the testimony of Jesus Christ’, and ‘all that he [John] saw’; (2) the three present substantival participles refer to the final recipients of the prophecy –o` avnaginw,skwn,oi` avkou,ontej, oi `... throu/ntej– and also refer back to the previous reference to the final recipient of the revelation (toi/j dou,loij auvtou/).50 More significantly, the focal point of the first micro- paragraph is paraenetically applied to the audiences in the second micro-paragraph by means of the macarism (Rev 1:3). In other words, the content of the revelation highlighted as the focal point in the form of atitulus is recaptured rhetorically in the compound sentential structure of the macarism. The content of the prophecy implied in the expressiona] dei/ gene,sqai evn ta,ceiis recaptured paraenetically as the objective references of the three present substantival participles.

In particular, its imminent temporal aspect implied in the expression evn ta,cei (colon 1c) is

specifically retaken as the form of apodosis in the macarism (o` ga.r kairo.j evggu,j). The temporal aspect, therefore, functions as a reason for the obedience to the words of the prophecy.

Thus, the co-textual flow of the first micro-paragraph (Rev 1:1-2) converges into the second micro-paragraph where the paraenetic imperative is manifested (Rev 1:3). The first micro-paragraph introduces the revelation by denoting its divine origin, communicational way,

50

‘His servants’ refers not merely to a specific group of Christian prophet, but to all faithful Christians, see also Murphy, 1994, 64; cf. Fiorenza, 1993, 40.

characters, and content. This introduction is taken up and paraenetically applied to the audience in a liturgical setting. Therefore, the slot of the second micro-paragraph highlights the pragmatic purpose of the revelation and relates it to the slot of the first micro-paragraph. In this sense, the semantic relationship between the two units can be defined as ‘thesis and purpose’.