On the Final Chapters of RevJohn ("Hostile Witness" version)

[Dondi]

Until then, I’ll note that Christ is the one doing the primary action in the (highly romantic! ) Ephesians reference (indeed the sole action, so far as that ref goes); ditto John 15:3; and Christ is again taking the lead and providing the means with the Samaritan woman at John 6 (though there she’s expected to cooperate, too).

Granted that Christ initiates the action, but in any dealings we have with the word of God implies two things: 1) we must believe it 2) we must obey it. In the same Ephesians passage, just as the husband loves the wife, the wife must subject to her husband in everything, as the church is subject to Christ. We have to respond to the washing of the water of the word.

On the other hand, only the volition from our side is mentioned at John 14:21. But then, neither is an important thematic distinction being mentioned there. (I’ll try to tie this back up soon in the exchange with Aaron37.)

I’m not sure what you mean that this passage is not an important thematic distinction being mentioned there. But I await for further comment during your present exchange.

[JasonPratt]

Look, I was just talking about that passage. I’m fine with the metaphor but not with you allowing liberal interpretations for yourself but no one else. Granted you do have reference elsewhere on that one though. My bad.

It’s still a “liberal” reference. Unless A37 means that the water of life is actually blood and not water. Or both blood and water at the same time (and not mixed, I suppose). And that the saints coming out of the great trib (not to say the rest of us?!) have literal robes which were literally filthy and which they literally washed clean and bright in the literal blood of Christ.

He might–he seems to think the beast from the sea will have little horns on it which will become kings of the earth (while still remaining literally little horns) and go around doing things.

Most interpreters of RevJohn, though, take most of the imagery to be figurative apocalyptic in the style of (indeed frequently referencing) OT prophets. It may represent actual historical events still to happen from the perspective of John (and perhaps from our perspective, too, depending on whether a hardcore preterist interpretation of RevJohn is true), but the events are ‘coded’ in poetic imagery.

Still, it should be fairly recalled that some of the OT prophecies came more literally true than people were expecting!

[Aaron37]

Were talking about obedience here, not saving ourselves by keeping the commandments.

Does your version not read “blessed are those who keep the commandments (so) that they shall have authority” to enter the gates and eat of the tree? I thought I recalled that it did (in grammatic variations).

Not all believers can be described as “those who do His commandments.”

True; nor can all those who do His commandments be called believers. (For which there is also abundant testimony, not least Rev 2:1-7.)

I agree about Jesus not taking even apostles’ obedience for granted, btw.

Similarly, in Revelation chapters 2-3 the Lord makes it clear that being a victorious overcoming believer is not guaranteed (see, for example, 2:2-7, 10, 25-28; 3:11-12).

Yep, even for the Ephesian church, as noted. (If it wasn’t for verse 4 and the consequent threat of verse 5, they’d have a super-positive obedience report card, yes?)

What is “the right to the tree of life”? It is the right to eat its fruits. Compare Rev 2:7, “To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life.”

No disagreement here! But I’d rather wait and cover that in context soon.

Yes, I agree, one must have his robes washed with the blood of Christ to enter the city.

Like the ones coming out of the great tribulation for example (at Rev 7:14–where in the narrative of the prophecy the great trib hasn’t kicked off yet, so John has to be looking ahead.)

But, whether we’re coming out of the great trib or not (and aside from what it means to come out of the great trib), washing our robes with the blood of Christ would be equivalent to washing our robes in the water of life.

Agreed?

Or, if you disagree, would you at least agree that washing our robes in the blood of Christ is equivalent to slaking our thirst with the water of life?

I have found that according to the Modern Versions of bibles, it is “those who have washed their robes” who will enter in through the gates into the City. To “wash your robes” you need to wash them in “THE BLOOD OF CHRIST’S RIGHTEOUSNESS” which is imparted to us by accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior.

“THOSE WHO HAVE WASHED THEIR ROBES” are “BLESSED”, because they are from the group which THE BIBLE REFERS TO AS; “THOSE THAT “DO” [OR KEEP] HIS COMMANDMENTS”, why not say so in the first place? Especially when the translators of The King James and of many other Versions, considered that there was plenty of evidence that the verse should definitely read that GOD WOULD BLESS COMMANDMENT KEEPERS. The translators of the RSV add a footnote to verse 14. (the first part) “Other ancient authorities read do HIS commandments”; then why not say so?

The ancient manuscripts are divided in their readings. The two clauses are very similar in the
Greek, the following transliteration will show the similarity.
“hoi poiountes tas entolas autou” (do HIS Commandments.)
“hoi plunontes tas stolas auton” (that wash their robes.) It is easy to see that it is no easy matter to choose the best translation, but I must favour the KJV’s wording, because there are more references to “Commandment Keeping”, see Rev 12:17 ; Rev 14:12 ; Jn 14:15,21 ; Jn 15:10 ; 1 Jn 2:3-6 ; 1 Jn 3:4 ; Matt 19:17, to mention a few; but there are only a couple of references to “washing robes”.

So, Those who have washed their robes are blessed, because they are from the group which the bible refers to as; “Those that do or keep his commandments”.

[stellar_renegade]

“THOSE WHO HAVE WASHED THEIR ROBES” are “BLESSED”, because they are from the group which THE BIBLE REFERS TO AS; “THOSE THAT “DO” [OR KEEP] HIS COMMANDMENTS”, why not say so in the first place? Especially when the translators of The King James and of many other Versions, considered that there was plenty of evidence that the verse should definitely read that GOD WOULD BLESS COMMANDMENT KEEPERS. The translators of the RSV add a footnote to verse 14. (the first part) “Other ancient authorities read do HIS commandments”; then why not say so?

1. Haven’t even you admitted that salvation is not by works but by the grace and power of Jesus Christ? Works just indicate inward condition, thus the power of the reality of the river of life is of utmost importance; keeping the commandments is just an after-effect.
2. Because it keeps the vivid strength of the spiritually effective metaphor running. There is much more depth to the concept of the river of life than that of simply keeping commandments. For one, it helps to focus on a particular piece of imagery, for another it gives further meaning, such as water not only being good for sustenance but also washing, and being refreshing, etc. The Spirit of Christ is good for all of those as well.

[TGB]

I’ve always taken “the Spirit and the Bride say ‘Come!’” to be a postscript after the closing of the vision. Basically at this point we’re OUT of the vision and its narrative and back in John’s day, so that it is the readers/hearers OF THIS LETTER who are invited, in light of its vision, to come.

Tom