Antecedant of LATREUO of Rev. 22:3

How do I work out the meaning of a Greek text? How can I best understand the forms and vocabulary in this particular text?
Forum rules
This is a beginner's forum - see the Koine Greek forum for more advanced discussion of Greek texts. Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up.

When answering questions in this forum, keep it simple, and aim your responses to the level of the person asking the question.
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Antecedant of LATREUO of Rev. 22:3

Post by Scott Lawson »

My thanks to all! This is a very fascinating discussion!
Scott Lawson
Stephen_Banes
Posts: 5
Joined: February 16th, 2014, 4:39 pm

Re: Antecedant of LATREUO of Rev. 22:3

Post by Stephen_Banes »

Stephen Carlson wrote:
Scott Lawson wrote:Revelation 7:15 says: "διὰ τοῦτὸ εἰσιν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ λατρεύουσιν αὐτῷ..."

Stephen C. does Barry's statement to the effect that the nearest noun in the sentence should be considered the antecedent unless there are overriding circumstances work at Rev. 7:15 so that θεοῦ should be considered the antecedent of αὐτῷ?
My rule is that the most salient referent matching the pronoun is the antecedent. Usually the nearest matching referent is, but not always. World knowledge, common sense, context, knowledge of the author's thinking, etc. may trump that. We find out who is sitting in the throne in v.17.
Scott Lawson wrote:Do you agree with my observation that τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀρνίου functions as a grammatical unit and that as such neither of the substantives can be broken out of the unit so as to be considered the antecedent of αὐτῷ?Or how would you describe τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀρνίου at Rev. 22:3?
It is a certainly grammatical unit, but I am not aware of any (valid) rule that forbids either member from being an antecedent for a later pronoun.
You write: "that τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀρνίου functions as a grammatical unit and that as such neither of the substantives can be broken out of the unit so as to be considered the antecedent of αὐτῷ"

So I ask, in light of Rev. 3:21 that tells us: ὁ νικῶν δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ μου ὡς κἀγὼ ἐνίκησα καὶ ἐκάθισα μετὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ αὐτοῦ, are you concluding that the "slaves" AUTW render LATREUO to themselves? As Rev. 3:21 plainly tells us they too sit on the throne and cannot be broken out of the "grammatical unit?"

Thanks for this great discussion!
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Antecedant of LATREUO of Rev. 22:3

Post by Scott Lawson »

Stephen Carlson wrote:
Scott Lawson wrote:Do you agree with my observation that τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀρνίου functions as a grammatical unit and that as such neither of the substantives can be broken out of the unit so as to be considered the antecedent of αὐτῷ?Or how would you describe τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀρνίου at Rev. 22:3?
It is a certainly grammatical unit, but I am not aware of any (valid) rule that forbids either member from being an antecedent for a later pronoun.
Stephen, though there is no valid rule that forbids either member from being an antecedent to a later pronoun, would you say that being joined as a grammatical unit contributes to the lack of saliency so that it would become difficult to reference one member of the unit without first bringing him into focus?
Scott Lawson
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Antecedant of LATREUO of Rev. 22:3

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Scott Lawson wrote:Stephen, though there is no valid rule that forbids either member from being an antecedent to a later pronoun, would you say that being joined as a grammatical unit contributes to the lack of saliency so that it would become difficult to reference one member of the unit without first bringing him into focus?
Not sure I'd say that. Saliency is more of a cognitive phenomenon than a syntactic one. The problem is that sometimes what is so clear in the author's mind might not be so in that of audience, particularly one that is removed from the author by two millennia.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Antecedant of LATREUO of Rev. 22:3

Post by Scott Lawson »

Stephen_Banes wrote:
You write: "that τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀρνίου functions as a grammatical unit and that as such neither of the substantives can be broken out of the unit so as to be considered the antecedent of αὐτῷ"

So I ask, in light of Rev. 3:21 that tells us: ὁ νικῶν δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ μου ὡς κἀγὼ ἐνίκησα καὶ ἐκάθισα μετὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ αὐτοῦ, are you concluding that the "slaves" AUTW render LATREUO to themselves? As Rev. 3:21 plainly tells us they too sit on the throne and cannot be broken out of the "grammatical unit?"

Thanks for this great discussion!
Stephen B. it's unclear to me if you are addressing the question to me or Stephen Carlson but since I wrote the above I'll give my thought. I don't think that λατρεύσουσιν necessarily can be connected back to anyone seated on the throne. The fact that the Lamb and those who come off victorious share God's throne is added information in the narrative. I do think that the antecedent of αὐτῷ in 7:15 is quite likely found in τοῦ θεοῦ. And that at 22:3 the antecedent is unstated but understood as θεός.

It looks like we were both posting questions at the same time but you beat me to the punch!
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Antecedant of LATREUO of Rev. 22:3

Post by Scott Lawson »

Stephen Carlson wrote:
Scott Lawson wrote:Stephen, though there is no valid rule that forbids either member from being an antecedent to a later pronoun, would you say that being joined as a grammatical unit contributes to the lack of saliency so that it would become difficult to reference one member of the unit without first bringing him into focus?
Not sure I'd say that. Saliency is more of a cognitive phenomenon than a syntactic one. The problem is that sometimes what is so clear in the author's mind might not be so in that of audience, particularly one that is removed from the author by two millennia.
Stephen, since an author's thoughts come out in sentences (hopefully without solecisms) and sentences involve syntax and grammar to convey meaning (cognition) to the recipient it would seem likely that the reasons for cognition or the lack of it would be found therein...but maybe not. I used to regularly ask more than could be answered from a text. Likely I'm doing so again.
Scott Lawson
Stephen_Banes
Posts: 5
Joined: February 16th, 2014, 4:39 pm

Re: Antecedant of LATREUO of Rev. 22:3

Post by Stephen_Banes »

Scott Lawson wrote:
Stephen_Banes wrote:
You write: "that τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀρνίου functions as a grammatical unit and that as such neither of the substantives can be broken out of the unit so as to be considered the antecedent of αὐτῷ"

So I ask, in light of Rev. 3:21 that tells us: ὁ νικῶν δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ μου ὡς κἀγὼ ἐνίκησα καὶ ἐκάθισα μετὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ αὐτοῦ, are you concluding that the "slaves" AUTW render LATREUO to themselves? As Rev. 3:21 plainly tells us they too sit on the throne and cannot be broken out of the "grammatical unit?"

Thanks for this great discussion!
Stephen B. it's unclear to me if you are addressing the question to me or Stephen Carlson but since I wrote the above I'll give my thought. I don't think that λατρεύσουσιν necessarily can be connected back to anyone seated on the throne. The fact that the Lamb and those who come off victorious share God's throne is added information in the narrative. I do think that the antecedent of αὐτῷ in 7:15 is quite likely found in τοῦ θεοῦ. And that at 22:3 the antecedent is unstated but understood as θεός.

It looks like we were both posting questions at the same time but you beat me to the punch!
Thanks so much for the effort!

So to summarize:
Rev. 3:21 tells us " ὁ νικῶν δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ μου ὡς κἀγὼ ἐνίκησα καὶ ἐκάθισα μετὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ αὐτοῦ"
That is, "those that overcome like Jesus," sit on "the same throne" as he and his Father.

Rev. 7:15 says: "διὰ τοῦτό εἰσιν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ λατρεύουσιν αὐτῷ ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς ἐν τῷ ναῷ αὐτοῦ καὶ ὁ καθήμενος ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου σκηνώσει ἐπ’ αὐτούς"
That is, those that οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἐρχόμενοι ἐκ τῆς θλίψεως τῆς μεγάλης (are out of the great tribulation) of verse 14, λατρεύουσιν αὐτῷ (render him sacred service), and that HIM, AUTW, is none other than THEOU.

Finally: Rev. 22:3 tells us: ' καὶ πᾶν κατάθεμα οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι καὶ ὁ θρόνος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀρνίου ἐν αὐτῇ ἔσται καὶ οἱ δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ λατρεύσουσιν αὐτῷ"
That is, λατρεύσουσιν is given by DOULOI, that is δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ λατρεύσουσιν αὐτῷ, and the recipient of such, is to one (AUTW) of those on the throne.

You stated above that AUTW (just as in 7:15) at 22:3, "the antecedent is unstated but understood as θεός."

Thus, it is THEOS and not ARNION that would be "the unstated but understood antecedent of AUTW" at Rev. 22:3 when examining and comparing relative texts.

I have much to digest.

Thanks for this Scott!

Best
Stephen_Banes
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Antecedant of LATREUO of Rev. 22:3

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Stephen_Banes wrote:Finally: Rev. 22:3 tells us: ' καὶ πᾶν κατάθεμα οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι καὶ ὁ θρόνος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀρνίου ἐν αὐτῇ ἔσται καὶ οἱ δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ λατρεύσουσιν αὐτῷ"
That is, λατρεύσουσιν is given by DOULOI, that is δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ λατρεύσουσιν αὐτῷ, and the recipient of such, is to one (AUTW) of those on the throne.
If you are just getting into Greek, you are probably familar with an English meaning of οἱ δοῦλοι "the slaves", "the servants". That would be okay for your everyday useage, but here we are looking at something in greater depth. When looking at one part of a passage in Greater depth, it is often worthwhile looking at the other things in the same degree of detail - that sort of balances things in the analysis.

οἱ δοῦλοι is probably here used in a religious sense, rather than an economic ("slavery") sense. You might like to look for a religious understanding of the word, not rely on the socioeconomic meaning that you are probably familiar with.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen_Banes
Posts: 5
Joined: February 16th, 2014, 4:39 pm

Re: Antecedant of LATREUO of Rev. 22:3

Post by Stephen_Banes »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Stephen_Banes wrote:Finally: Rev. 22:3 tells us: ' καὶ πᾶν κατάθεμα οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι καὶ ὁ θρόνος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀρνίου ἐν αὐτῇ ἔσται καὶ οἱ δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ λατρεύσουσιν αὐτῷ"
That is, λατρεύσουσιν is given by DOULOI, that is δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ λατρεύσουσιν αὐτῷ, and the recipient of such, is to one (AUTW) of those on the throne.
If you are just getting into Greek, you are probably familar with an English meaning of οἱ δοῦλοι "the slaves", "the servants". That would be okay for your everyday useage, but here we are looking at something in greater depth. When looking at one part of a passage in Greater depth, it is often worthwhile looking at the other things in the same degree of detail - that sort of balances things in the analysis.

οἱ δοῦλοι is probably here used in a religious sense, rather than an economic ("slavery") sense. You might like to look for a religious understanding of the word, not rely on the socioeconomic meaning that you are probably familiar with.
Thank you for this.

I too agree that δοῦλοι is used in a religious sense in it's context with αὐτοῦ λατρεύσουσιν αὐτῷ.
Stephen_Banes
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

λατρεύειν with δοῦλος

Post by Stephen Hughes »

My reasons for thinking that are because λατρεύειν seems to be only used in a religious sense. δοῦλος seems to be used in both socioeconomic and religous senses, so here (by exclusion) there is only one choice - it is most probably religious.

A translation of λατρεύειν (+ the one served in the dative) as "to serve" could be misleading here. The translation, "His servants/ slaves will serve him." could be construed with as having a meaning of care or servitude. Apart from here where λατρεύειν might be being used of the Lamb, it is always used of God.

To give you a fuller picture of how this word means what it does, let's look at two others. In Greek, the usual word for a servant serving a master is δουλεύειν (+ the one served in the dative) (like in Matthew 6:24). Another way that λατρεύειν is translated is to say, "to worship", but here too, we need to look at the Greek to see what is being said, and what is not being said. The word προσκυνῆσαι "to worship" means "to kneel before", "to show obeisance to". It is external action following from the internal recognition of God's everything.

Much later during the periods that are called the Byzantine Iconoclasm - under first Leo III (the Isaurian) and later Constantine V (the Shit-named) - the words; εἰκονολάτραι (image worshipers), and εἰκονόδουλοι (the ones who use images in worship) were synonymous. εἰκών, -όνος, ἡ is the Greek word for image (cf. icon)

Translation is not the end of our study. You will know when you read this verse "His servants will serve Him" that "serve" here is a religious word meaning "fastings" and "prayers", or other sorts of thing that we usually do to follow a religion, and you can explain that to others (of course in heaven there will be no fasting).
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Post Reply

Return to “What does this text mean?”