Re: Rev.1:1

From: Theodore H. Mann (
Date: Fri Jan 23 1998 - 17:30:20 EST

Dr. Theodore "Ted" H. Mann
Orchard Lake, Michigan

>On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 09:55:42 -0600 (CST), I cited an article which said,
in part, in reference to Rev.1:1a:

>>At issue here is the simple Greek phrase APOKALUYSIS IHSOU CRISTOU.
The precise meaning turns on the genitive "of Jesus Christ," which, if
>>taken as the objective genitive, denotes the manifestation, or
disclosure, of Jesus Christ, but if taken as the subjective or possessive
>>genitive, denotes Jesus Christ merely as the medium of the revelation.
Although certain respected scholars are of the latter school, their
>>arguments are far from conclusive, but in general incomplete.

>Ginger Ferguson wrote, in part:

>Can anyone point me to these "certain respected scholars"? If, indeed,
APOKALUYSIS IHSOU CRISTOU is the subjective or possessive genitive,
>that indicates (EMOI) that Jesus is not "merely" but fully the medium or
manifestation of revelation. BTW, isn't this the argument presented in
the opening of >the Hebrews Epistle, that God's Word no longer comes to
us POLUMERWS KAI POLUTROPWS, little by little and in many ways, but

 With regard to the "certain respected scholars," there is a footnote to
the comment in the article, which, for whatever it is worth, reads:

Robertson [Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol.VI: p283] argues that
the subjective genitive is attested by the subsequent phrase, "which God
gave to Him" (1:1b). But Robertson himself notes that the Father's
giving to the Son and the Son's speaking from the Father are according to
the principle set forth in the Gospel of John, for which Alford [The
Greek Testament: p.545] cites John 7:16, 14:10, and 17:7,8. The Son
speaks that which He receives from the Father "by his hypostatic union
with Him." This is an excellent exposition of "God gave to Him," but it
still speaks nothing as to the content of the revelation. Hort [The
Apocalypse of St. John] argues at length that the grammar itself demands
that this book is "the unveiling of the hidden Christ to man," comparing
1:1 to Galations 1:16. In principle, Walvoord [The Revelation of Jesus
Christ: p.30] concludes that the theology of Revelation is more
specifically Christological than eschatological." We agree. The grammar
of Revelation 1:1 is simply insufficient for a complete interpretation.
The content of Revelation must be understood from the practical facts of
the book.


You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:01 EDT