[B-Greek] The Tree of Life in Rev. 22:2

Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Wed May 10 16:29:02 EDT 2006


Dear Stephen,

Juan's offered a good possibility for taking ENTEUQEN KAI EKEIQEN 
just with the river, but I will say that the same phrase EN MESWi 
with two following genitive objects occurs in Rev 5:6, where HCSB 
translates: "between the throne and the four living creatures." So 
starting the sentence at the beginning of verse 2 seems quite 
plausible if ENTEUQEN KAI EKEIQEN can make sense with it. In Ezekiel 
47:1 the vision starts as in Rev 22:1. That is, the water is simply 
pictured as coming out from a source, either the temple (Ezekiel) or 
the throne (Revelation). That is, in Ezekiel there is no statement of 
a pathway like a street for the water to flow down.


>Let me get this straight: you're saying that we should translate this
>something like: "In the midst of its street and the river, [one] on this
>side and [one] on the other, [is] the tree of life..."


HH: Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks.

>  This makes a
>tremendous amount of sense, if it's indeed valid (and I can't see why not).


HH: People seem to want to associate ENTEUQEN KAI EKEIQEN with just 
the river. See the Weymouth NT, which in other respects is like the 
idea I presented:


22:2
On either side of the river, midway between it and the main street of 
the city, was the Tree of Life. It produced twelve kinds of fruit, 
yielding a fresh crop month by month, and the leaves of the tree 
served as medicine for the nations.

HH: I cannot picture exactly what Weymouth had in mind and wonder if 
it's logically possible. However, if you regard POTAMOU as a second 
genitive modifier of MESWi, then ENTEUQEN KAI EKEIQEN could be 
adverbial modifiers of the whole prepositional phrase beginning with 
MESWi: "in between the street and the river on one side and the other 
is the tree of life." That is equivalent to: "in between the street 
on one side and the river on the other is the tree of life." The 
phrase ENTEUQEN KAI EKEIQEN is not used elsewhere in the NT or the 
LXX, but  the double use of ENQEN in Ezek 47:1 does not have to 
control exactly how the words are used in Revelation.

HH: The author of Revelation was describing a vision shown to him by 
God, if we take him at his word. There is no necessary incorporation 
of Ezekiel 47, except in that God inspired both visions. That is, 
Revelation 22 does not have to be a literary reworking of Ezekiel 47, 
though both visions may have the same ultimate source.


>This is really too simple (it embarrasses me for not catching it myself),
>and makes me wonder why there is such an overwhelming tendency to match the
>string EN MESW THS PLATEIAS AUTHS with the river, which oddly splits a road
>down the middle with a river, and envisions a tree growing on two sides of
>the same river.


HH: Perhaps the tendency is due to Ezekiel 47. The KJV does not have 
it, but the KJV is difficult to understand. It might suggest multiple 
trees growing, some in a green median in the middle of the street, 
and others on either side of the river. G. K. Beale in his NGCNT 
commentary on Revelation notes that interpretation of taking EN MESW 
THS PLATEIAS AUTHS with verse 1. But he also suggests the sentence 
can begin with verse 2 (as with the UBS GNT, of course). He thinks 
one way to take it starting with verse 2 is the street and river 
running parallel with trees growing between them (so he would allow 
that the single tree could have multiplied). A third possibility he 
offers (the 2nd starting with verse 2) is that there is a single tree 
growing in the middle of the city's street, and the tree is between 
either side of the river. This theory requires that the river 
diverged into two branches before reaching the tree. Fourthly, he 
suggests that even if one starts a new sentence at verse 2, the 
possibility of a river running down the middle of the street still 
exists. He seems to mistakenly cite the NIV and RSV for this fourth 
idea, but perhaps he is just citing those versions to establish the 
idea as presented in the first interpretation. He also does not say 
where the tree is under this last view, but presumably it is growing 
on either side of the river, as in the first view.


>Any other thoughts?


HH: If you allow that the tree of life could be a species of tree 
that could exist in multiple specimens, then the majority 
interpretation could work fine. Is a single tree adequate for the 
healing of all the nations (Rev 22:2)? That might tax its leaf 
system. Even with twelve crops a year one tree would not produce that 
much fruit for the whole world, and all believers will have a right 
to eat of it (Rev 2:7; 22:19). However, the vision may be somewhat 
figurative of spiritual realities. So I am content whether it is a 
single tree or a forest.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard




More information about the B-Greek mailing list