Exegetical Toolkit, Part 3
Grammatical-Syntactical Analysis
(avg. read time: 22–45 mins.)
Part 1: Introduction and Context
This tool coinheres with textual criticism and enables more accurate and deeper inductive Bible study, as there is no substitute for learning the languages in which Scripture was written. Of course, not everyone needs to be an expert in these languages, but it is always helpful to have someone in a community who has competence in one or more of the original languages, particularly among those tasked with teaching. Such knowledge is needed for the task of Bible translation in whatever the receptor language is, as well as in the task of evaluating translations. Translation is an imperfect process and relying strictly on one’s native language for grammatical/syntactical analysis will inevitably face obstacles, though if the translation is accurate, it can still have derivative benefits. It is certainly not a bad place to start by working with the translation you have; just be ready to revise observations accordingly if you learn that a given translation is inaccurate at a certain point. At the same time, as anyone who has learned additional languages beyond their native one can tell you, to learn another language helps to illuminate your own language in the similarities, differences, and categories of constituents (i.e., the parts of sentences). This is the sort of thing I used to teach for entire semesters, but it is not as if I plan to fit an entire semester’s worth of coursework in this one post. For those of my former Greek students who are subscribed to this Substack, here is another application of what you have learned.
This kind of analysis is grammatical-syntactical in that it deals with systems of language and the rules that govern it (grammar), but it is specifically concerned with how these manifest in the composition of phrases, clauses, and sentences (syntax). Phrases are any group of words acting as a grammatical unit, and thus they can be nominal, verbal, adjectival, prepositional, and so on. Clauses minimally contain subjects and predicates, usually verbs (implicitly or explicitly). They may be independent/main and capable of forming their own sentences, or they may be dependent/subordinate and require being attached to independent clauses to form a complete sentence. Sentences minimally contain subjects and verbs (implicitly or explicitly), and they often contain predicates or objects.
The constituents of phrases, clauses, and sentences that we attend to in this analysis include the following.
Nouns/Substantives: A person, place, thing, or idea. They can function as subjects, direct objects, or indirect objects. They can also be recipients of direct address (Everybody, let’s get to work).
Pronouns: Words that can replace nouns in a sentence. Using pronouns allows a writer to avoid using nouns too often and creating overly cumbersome sentences.
Ex: He, she, it, you, y'all (here in the South), they, them, I, me, himself, herself, itself, myself
Adjectives: Words that modify nouns and pronouns or modifiers that act like nouns (i.e., substantives)
Ex: ancient Jerusalem, the righteous
Prepositions: Words that express relationships between nouns/pronouns/substantives and other words in a sentence. Adverbial prepositional phrases modify verbs while adjectival prepositional phrases modify substantives.
Ex: He became flesh and dwelt among us; They walked with Jesus; Can anything good come from Nazareth?
Verbs: Words that convey action or state of being for the subject. The action may affect an object distinct from the subject (a transitive verb) or it may not (an intransitive verb).
Ex: Write, study, learn, worship, grow
Adverbs: Words that modify verbs, adjectives, and other adverbs.
Ex: She prays often; I have worked tirelessly; Walk humbly before the Lord; This statement is absolutely true.
Conjunctions: Words that join phrases, clauses, and sentences in a formal or logical relationship. They may be coordinating (connecting equal parts of a sentence) or subordinating (connecting a subordinate clause to a main clause). Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic often have an initial one at the start of a sentence.
Ex: He was crucified, buried, and raised from the dead (coordinating); If you want to follow me, sell your possessions (subordinating).
Interjections: Exclamations that grab attention.
Ex: Behold, the time is coming; Amen! Amen! I say to you…
We can analyze each of these categories more granularly, but it is best to save that for the actual application.
There are a number of textbooks out there useful for learning the languages in question. Zondervan has published rather popular books by Robert Mounce, Gary Pratico, and Miles Van Pelt to introduce readers to Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (and they have resources on other languages as well). I have yet to get a hold of Michael Boler’s Introduction to Classical and New Testament Greek: A Unified Approach, but the concept sounds worthwhile. I would be remiss not to mention the publisher of my first two (soon to be three) books: GlossaHouse. They have a number of resources available for various levels of language familiarity in the biblical languages and others for reading ancient works. There are also online resources, such as Daily Dose of Hebrew, Daily Dose of Aramaic, and Daily Dose of Greek for daily and digestible reminders for retention and development of analytical skills.
Lexica are helpful for translation (and will be more helpful for the next part of this series), particularly in terms of how they list different meanings of terms for different contexts. It should be noted that the widely used Strong’s Concordance is not a lexicon. It is helpful for finding other uses of a term you are looking up but not for actually providing definitions. The Thayer’s Lexicon available for free (such as on otherwise useful sites like Blue Letter Bible) is outdated and should not be relied on exclusively. For Hebrew and Aramaic texts, lexica in general use among scholars for Hebrew and Aramaic include the older Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, as well as the multi-volume Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT) and William L. Holladay’s single-volume A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. For Greek, probably the most widely used for its specific focus on the NT and early Christian literature is one of the later editions of the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature known as BDAG because of its editors’ names (Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich). Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida composed a Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains that I do not particularly recommend for people initially learning Greek, but it does provide worthwhile perspective if you learn how to sort through it. A much broader lexicon (also available at the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae site) that is useful for studying NT usage of Greek in light of the wider context of Greek is the Liddell-Scott-Jones A Greek-English Lexicon, which has now gone through many editions. Another lexicon I would recommend is Franco Montanari’s Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, sometimes known as BrillDAG. (For Septuagint research in particular, the Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint [LEH, for Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie] is also recommended.)
Beyond resources I have already noted, for fuller grammatical-syntactical analysis, it is useful to consult both grammars and technical commentaries. A classic resource for Hebrew composed by a brilliant master of the language is Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Other more recent ones that I would recommend include:
Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 2nd ed.
Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (2 vols.)
C. L. Seow, A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew
Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax
Alger F. Johns, A Short Grammar of Biblical Aramaic
Franz Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, 6th or 7th ed.
Additionally, another resource that is useful in this regard for how it engages with biblical and theological context of linguistics is Jacques B. Doukhan’s Hebrew for Theologians: A Textbook for the Study of Biblical Hebrew in Relation to Hebrew Thinking.
As for Greek, maybe the most popular resource is Daniel Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (available in condensed form as The Basics of New Testament Syntax). One that is becoming more popular, and which should be used alongside Wallace, is Steven E. Runge’s Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament. These volumes illustrate different approaches, one informed by traditional grammar and one incorporating a newer approach that still needs to stand the test of time. Some insights have come with newer approaches, but not everything has held up under scrutiny. Constantine Campbell goes through some of these issues in his Advances in the Study of Greek. A volume focused on a particular aspect of the Greek language that I recommend is The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, although it is certainly a more technical resource. One other resource that still touts the virtues of traditional grammar, and which is by a native Greek speaker, is Chrys Caragounis’s The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology, Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission, though it is again certainly a more technical resource.
Besides these general resources, various technical commentaries will provide detailed grammatical-syntactical analysis of particular books. Many of these are parts of series like (in no particular order):
Anchor Bible
International Critical Commentary
Word Biblical Commentary
The JPS Bible Commentary
Hermeneia
Zondervan Exegetical Commentary
The New International Greek Testament Commentary
Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (at least some volumes)
The New International Commentary on the New Testament (at least some volumes)
A series that differs from the above in its linguistic focus is the Baylor Handbook series (which includes my old professor John Cook’s Aramaic Ezra and Daniel: A Handbook on the Aramaic Text). Less advanced resources for the NT in particular (I do not know of an OT equivalent) can be found in the Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament series.
Application to Rev 1:1–8
This will probably be the longest application section in this whole series because of how I am going through this piece by piece. First, let me reiterate the Greek text established at the end of the last part:
1 Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει, καὶ ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγελου αὐτοῦ τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννῃ, 2 ὃς ἐμαρτύρησεν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὅσα εἶδεν. 3 Μακάριος ὁ ἀναγινώσκων καὶ οἱ ἀκούοντες τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας καὶ τηροῦντες τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ γεγραμμένα, ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς ἐγγύς. 4 Ἰωάννης ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις ταῖς ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ· χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ ὁ ὤν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων ἃ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ 5 καὶ ἀπὸ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστὀς, ὁ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ ὁ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς. Τῷ ἀγαπῶντι ἡμᾶς καὶ λύσαντι ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ, 6 καὶ ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν, ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ, αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων· ἀμήν.
7 Ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν,
καὶ ὄψεται αὐτὸν πὰς ὀφθαλμὸς
καὶ οἵτινες αὐτὸν ἐξεκέντησαν,
καὶ κόψονται επ’ αὐτὸν πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς. Ναί, ἀμήν.
8 Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τὸ ὦ, λέγει κύριος ὁ θεός, ὁ ὤν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὁ παντοκράτωρ.
Verse 1
Ἀποκάλυψις is a nominative absolute, which is common to epistolary openings and other formulaic statements. Such constructions also appear in book titles, hence what we observed last time in this series of how the text was titled “Apocalypse of John,” and so two manuscripts transferred that title here. There is no explicit verb of which this nominative is the subject (which is otherwisr often the case with nominatives), but it is not unusual for nominative absolutes to have “gapped” or “null” verbs attached to them. That is, the verbs in question are not explicit, but they are syntactically assumed. Most often, the gapped verb is a copula or “to be” verb. Other times, it is one that can be fairly assumed or resumed from the context. In this case, the noun itself conveys a verbal idea in the action of revelation.
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is a genitive that functions in this context as a subjective genitive. That is, the noun appearing in the genitive case (the case often describing relationship) is the subject of the verbal idea in the context. Jesus Christ is the subject revealing the content of the revelation in this book. I have also seen it proposed that this could be a genitive of source, and that is once how I took it, but I find this less likely in this context because the rest of the sentence indicates that the source is God the Father. Jesus is still the intermediate source as the acting subject who in turn reveals it to others.
ἣν is a feminine relative pronoun. It is feminine because the antecedent/anaphoric noun it is standing in for (ἀποκάλυψις) is feminine. In Greek, pronouns agree with the corresponding noun in terms of gender and number, but the case does not necessarily need to agree, since case depends on how the pronoun is functioning in the context. Thus it is here as the pronoun is in the accusative case. It is in this case because—as with the vast, vast majority of accusatives—it is functioning as the direct object of the main verb, which is the next word. That is, it receives the action of the verb.
ἔδωκεν is an aorist active indicative 3rd person singular verb. This is typically translated as a past tense (“gave”). This is by no means incorrect. Dionysios Thrax, a Greek grammarian who wrote his Ars Grammatica (or Technē Grammatikē in its Greek title) in the second century BCE, classified aorist as typically referring to past action. That is, this is prototypically the case. At the same time, he noted it as being similar to the future in its sense of duration. What we call tenses do not inevitably convey temporal reference, whether because they are present in a verbal mood other than the indicative,1 which may convey something other than absolute time, or because the context licenses using it in some other way.
More fundamental to understanding the tense system is the concept of verbal aspect. Verbal aspect is what is conveyed semantically by the verb form itself in terms of “viewpoint” of the action. Present and imperfect tenses encode imperfective aspect, where the action is viewed internally, typically as in progress or incomplete. Aorists encode perfective aspect, where the action is viewed externally as a whole or complete, but not necessarily completed. Perfects and plurperfects have what is called “resultative-stative aspect,” in the sense that the action is a given (often complex) state of affairs that may emphasize the ongoing state established by an action or the ongoing results. I think it is better to think of this as “combinative” aspect, meaning that it combines imperfective aspect in reference to the ongoing results with perfective aspect in reference to the given state of affairs established by the action (in various contexts, one or the other may be emphasized). Finally, future aspect refers to action reflecting expectation or intention of occurrence in the future.
The aorist indicative here does refer to past action. Furthermore, it looks at the action as a whole, as it was something given rather than something continuing to be given. While the aorist does not necessarily signify completed action, it could perhaps be understood as such in this context.
αὐτῷ is the third-person singular personal pronoun in the dative case. This is appropriate as the dative is the case used for signifying the indirect object to or for which the action of the verb is performed. While the direct object is the revelation (as signified by the accusative relative pronoun) and thus signifies what is given, the personal pronoun here, referring to Jesus Christ, refers to the one for whom the action was done, as it was given to Jesus Christ.
ὁ θεὸς is the articular nominative which functions as the subject of the verb and of the clause. With exceptions that we will note later, when the subject of a verb is made explicit, it is done with the nominative. And thus in this one sentence we have seen the four major cases of nouns and adjectives in Greek along with some of their most common functions (there is no vocative, a less frequent case used for direct address, in this text).
This is also the occasion for addressing the matter of word order. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who taught in Rome in the first century BCE, had considered this matter and found in his predecessors every fashion of word order, and he thus concluded that beauty in expression did not depend on any particular order (Comp. 5). This is not to say that word order is irrelevant in Greek, but it is incredibly flexible. Indeed, those dedicated to formal equivalent translations of Greek into English must nevertheless sometimes rearrange the order of words in the Greek sentence in the process of translation to make a good English sentence for clarity.
The default or unmarked word order in Greek is the initial conjunction followed by the verb, then the subject, then the object (or VSO order). Variations from this order are certainly allowed in Greek grammar, but they are typically “marked” for some purpose. It could be for purposes such as framing to orient the audience by providing a segue or logical sequence, focus to bring special attention to the topic, or emphasis to provide important information that is contextually stressed.
In this instance, the order is object-verb-subject (OVS). This is driven by the nominative absolute construction at the beginning of the sentence. This puts focus on the object of the verb, which is the relative pronoun standing in for “revelation.”
δεῖξαι is an aorist active infinitive. Infinitives are verbal nouns (“to do,” “to be”), which means they have tense and voice but not person or number. Often, the subjects are accusative, but as in instances like this one, the subject can be nominative if it is the same as the subject of the main clause. The function of the infinitive is as a purpose statement; that is, God gave the revelation to Jesus in order to show “to his servants/slaves” (τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ).
The subsequent Greek phrase—τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ—consists of another dative indirect object accompanied by a dative article and a genitive. The article tends to accompany nouns attached to a possessive pronoun. And indeed the genitive third-person personal pronoun functions as a possessive genitive here (though one could also think of it as a genitive of relation in reference to persons).
δεῖ γενέσθαι is a textbook example of a complementary infinitive construction. A complementary infinitive is used to complete the verbal idea conveyed by certain verbs like “I want [to go],” “it is about [to rain],” “he is able [to do it],” and so on. This is among the most common as the verb has the sense of “it is necessary.” It can be translated in this way so as to retain the equivalent form of the infinitive in English (“it is necessary to happen”) or the phrase can be translated more smoothly as “must happen” in which the infinitive still completes the idea.
ἐν τάχει is an idiomatic prepositional phrase. It may be temporal in conveying what must happen “soon.” Or it may convey manner to refer to what must happen “quickly” or “suddenly.” In this context, because of a phrase we will see in 1:3, the temporal understanding is preferable. This could also be conveyed, though perhaps more ambiguously, with the adverb “directly.”
καὶ is by far the most common Greek conjunction. It often functions as a coordinating conjunction opening clauses or sentences and joining equal parts of sentences. That is how it functions here with the sense of “and.”
ἐσήμανεν is another aorist verb. It can have the sense of making something specific and clear or of signifying, as it is related to the terminology for “sign.” This is a term we will return to examine further in the next part. God is the grammatical subject of this verb, but in view of 22:6 and 16 functioning as the other side of an inclusio for this statement, the text invites us to see “God” as also inclusive of Jesus.
ἀποστείλας is an aorist active nominative masculine singular form of ἀποστέλλω (“I send”). Participles are verbal adjectives, having tense and voice like verbs on the one hand, and having case, gender, and number on the other hand. Most participles are adjectival or circumstantial/adverbial. The latter category modifies verbs by providing a subordinate clause related to the main verb. How such participles function is determined by context. In this context, it functions as a participle of means explaining how the main verb was accomplished (i.e., “by” sending through the angel). Participles also do not signal absolute time, as indicative verbs can, but relative time. In this case, the aorist participle combined with the aorist verb could signal something that happened contemporaneously with the verb or prior to the same. The latter makes more sense here: he made it known/showed it by his prior action of having sent through his angel. The object is left implicit here rather than confusing the grammatical structure that follows. But the object should be understood as the angel through whom the revelation is made known.
διὰ τοῦ ἀγγελου αὐτοῦ signifies means, as is common with διά + genitive constructions. The action is accomplished “through” X. Here, the angel, or “his” angel, is the intermediate agent of revelation with God and Jesus Christ as the primary agent. Again we see how the article accompanies terms with possessive/relational genitives.
τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννῃ supplies another indirect object plus a possessive/relational genitive and illustrates yet again points we have observed at multiple points. One other aspect worth noting here is the example of apposition. The name “John” is in the dative case here because it is in apposition to “the servant/slave.” Appositional constructions are cases where one noun is placed after another noun to give it further description or explanation. In English, this construction is often conveyed with a comma, particularly if it otherwise interrupts the flow of a sentence: “his servant/slave, John.”
Verse 2
Without punctuation in the original Greek, as these conventions came later, certain judgment calls are made as to where to divide sentences. Sometimes it is more obvious. Sometimes it is not. Here, critical texts see a resumption of the sentence in the absence of an independent subject.
ὃς ἐμαρτύρησεν begins with a relative pronoun that agrees with its antecedent proper noun (“John”) in gender and number but not in case. Again, the differentiation in case is due to it being the subject of the subordinate clause it begins. The verb the pronoun is the subject of is another aorist active indicative. This refers to John’s action of testifying as a whole, namely as it is presented in this book he has written. One could rightly refer to it as having past reference from the perspective of the audience while it is present or in progress from John’s perspective as he writes.
τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ are both phrases consisting of accusative direct objects modified by genitives. Although they are direct objects, they are often translated with a “to” connecting them to the preceding verb simply because of how the equivalent verbs of “witness” or “testify” are used in English (though “attesting” could better allow for the omission of “to”). The first is likely a genitive of source, though I have also seen it suggested as a subjective genitive (wherein God is the subject of the verbal idea of speaking the word). I take the second genitive as an objective genitive with Jesus Christ being the object of the verbal idea of testimony (one could thus translate it as “the testimony about Jesus Christ”). But I have also seen this suggested as a subjective genitive, wherein Jesus is the one testifying. This makes sense in light of how Jesus will later be described as “faithful witness,” but it does not seem most likely here. Given the same pair of phrases appears in 1:9 and 20:4, where the subjective genitive interpretations are less likely (especially in reference to the testimony of Jesus Christ), I doubt we are to understand the usage here differently.
As in many (but not all) other NT texts, the phrase “word of God” should be understood in reference to the gospel (cf. Luke 5:1; 8:11–15, 21; 11:28; Acts 4:29, 31; 6:2, 7; 8:14, 25; 11:1; 12:24; 13:5, 7, 44, 46, 48–49; 15:35–36; 16:32; 17:13; 18:11; 19:10, 20; 2 Cor 2:17; 4:2; Phil 1:14; Col 1:25; 1 Thess 1:8; 2:13 [2x]; 2 Thess 3:1; 2 Tim 2:9; Titus 1:3; 2:5; Heb 13:7; 1 Pet 1:23). (See here for more.) This phrase identifies God as the source of the gospel, as it is his life-giving word, the story through which he gives everlasting life that goes beyond his initial gift of life. Similarly, the testimony about Jesus Christ concerns the gospel. The word that comes from God is about Jesus Christ, as Jesus was, is, and will be the executor of God’s will. The word is about the Word through whom God accomplished his will, especially in his death, resurrection, and exaltation. Jesus is thus the medium and the message.
I also previously described these phrases in terms of the gospel in my series on the Trinitarian theology of Revelation, but I realize now that some explication is in order. Since the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ are related here as well to what John saw, we are not speaking here of the gospel simply in terms of past tense (i.e., of events that have already happened) or even of present tense (i.e., of the ongoing results of the gospel story). Rather, the text is more broadly relating what John saw of the past, present, and future as extensive dimensions of the gospel story. The major events of the gospel story that have already happened, along with the OT narrative that makes sense of them, provide the narrative framework and basis for the events that follow in terms of salvation, judgment, and so on (see here, here, here, and here).
ὅσα εἶδεν is the final clause of the sentence. It consists of a neuter plural accusative relative pronoun (specifically, one of quantity) that is the direct object of the verb. The subject is gapped because it is implied in the form of the verb itself and is further clarified by the surrounding context in which John is the most recent acting subject. In this way, Greek is similar to languages like Spanish, where (despite how many English-speakers first learn to speak it) verbs like “soy” and “estoy” are usually all that is required in a statement because the pronoun “yo” is assumed within the form of the verb. If the subject is made more explicit, it is done for reasons other than grammatical propriety (as in English, where it is expected).
Verse 3
Μακάριος is a predicate nominative beginning the next sentence. Predicate nominatives are nouns or adjectives that make an assertion about the subject of a verb of being (verbs of being are verbs that mean “to be” or “to become,” which make statements about identity or attribute). In blessing statements like this, such as the Beatitudes (Matt 5:3–12), the predicate tends to appear first to front the description of blessedness and call the audience’s attention to it. The verb of being is gapped here, which is common, as it is the verb (or kind of verb) that is most frequently assumed when a verb is gapped. Such clauses are regularly called “verbless” clauses, but they are only without verbs in the explicit sense; they are syntactically implicit.
ὁ ἀναγινώσκων καὶ οἱ ἀκούοντες are substantival participles (whereby participles are made to act as substantives rather than as modifiers of something else in the sentence) and the nominative subjects to which the predicate applies. The construction exemplifies one of the rules for distinguishing subject nominatives from predicate nominatives. When both appear, the nominatives with definite articles are the subjects, that is, unless the nominatives are pronouns, which take precedence as subjects.
τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας consists of an accusative plural, signifying the direct object of the verbal ideas in the participles (reading and hearing), followed by a genitive. The genitive may be attributive or epexegetical. In the former case, the genitive describes an attribute of the head noun, which could be translated as “prophetic words.” In the latter case, the genitive provides further explanation of the head noun, which could be translated as something like “the words that are the prophecy.” This construction can be used when the head noun is a broad category of which the genitive is a more specific and clearer example.
καὶ τηροῦντες supplies an occasion for us to discuss a certain kind of construction in Greek. This has been known as a TSKS construction, where the T stands for “the” or the definite article, the two Ss stand for “substantive” and the K stands for the conjunction καί. The article appears with the first substantive (particularly a noun, substantive adjective, or substantive participle) but the substantive after the conjunction lacks it. The rule that Granville Sharp defined for such constructions (a rule that bears his name) is:
When the copulative και connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article ὁ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person.2
That is, the construction equates singular, personal, and non-proper nouns/substantives where the article is applied to the first and not the second. Those qualifiers are important, because there are many such constructions in the TSKS form that do not meet all the criteria. Sharp only treated the rule as absolute in cases that met all three. If one or more of the three does not apply (in the case of plurals or impersonal substantives), the construction could refer to distinct entities, overlapping entities, instances where the first substantive is a subset of the second, the second is a subset of the first, or, in fact, the groups could be identical.
Here, the TSKS construction is interrupted by the accusative + genitive modifier noted above. Otherwise, it is οἱ ἀκούοντες … καὶ τηροῦντες. The substantive participles match in case, gender, and number, so it makes sense for the article to be applied to both. Since the participles are plural, the construction does not meet all the requirements for the Granville Sharp Rule. However, the principle of equating the substantives can still apply, as none of the other options make sense in this context. Those who observe/keep the words are not a subset of those who hear, nor are they in any way to be distinguished, since the rest of the book makes clear that those who hear the words and do not keep them or live accordingly would not be called “blessed.”
τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ γεγραμμένα is a perfect passive accusative neuter plural participle construction. The participle and its article surround a locative prepositional phrase in between. My old professor Joel Weaver called this a “participle pita pocket,” and I now have a hard time referring to it as anything else. The perfective passive substantive participle fits with a tendency for the verb γράφω being used in the perfect passive form throughout the NT. It conveys something not only “having been written” but as something that “stands written” (hence, it is often translated simply as “is written”). It was written and remains written, and the perfect helps to accentuate the ongoing state thereof. The participle is in the accusative form to match “the words” as the direct object of reading, hearing, and, most directly, keeping/observing. The pronoun is the dative feminine to fit with the preposition (which takes a dative complement) and to stand in for the feminine “prophecy.”
ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς ἐγγύς supplies a final gapped clause for this sentence. The conjunction γάρ is postpositive and thus appears second, even though it functions as an initial conjunction. It is often translated as “for” and functions to introduce explanatory material that strengthens what preceded it.3 Here, it links what precedes to the cause/motivation for reading, hearing, and keeping what is written in the prophecy. Namely, these things should be done, not only because they are right, but also because the time is near. The rest of this clause consists of a subject nominative (distinguished by an article) followed by a predicate. The gapped verb is yet again a copula or verb of being: “the time [is] near.” This substantiates the earlier decision in 1:2 to take the prepositional phrase as temporal in sense.
Verse 4
Ἰωάννης is the nominative absolute in the next sentence. This is a kind of nominative common in epistolary address (Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1; Phil 1:1; Col 1:1; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1; 1 Tim 1:1; 2 Tim 1:1; Titus 1:1; Phlm 1; Jas 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1; 2 Pet 1:1; 2 John 1; 3 John 1; Jude 1). This is the first signal that this part of Revelation will have more epistolary format to come.
ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις ταῖς ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ identifies the recipients. The gapped verb in this case is well enough understood by the epistolary form to be something like “writing.” The second article functions as an adjectivizer. That is, it turns the phrase that follows into an adjective modifying “churches/assemblies.” Thus, it is translated, “the churches/assemblies which are in Asia.” The prepositional phrase followed by its dative complement signifies location.
χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη are other standard epistolary elements in the NT (Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2; Phil 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:2; 1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1:2; Titus 1:4; Phlm 3; 1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 1:2; 2 John 3). As in the standard formula, the terms are conventionally in the nominative here with a gapped verb of being/copula. The dative pronoun is one of advantage or interest in this case, which shows that what is given to them is for their benefit.
ἀπὸ ὁ ὤν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος is the first example of many that have been cited as cases of “solecism” in Revelation, meaning that it transgresses the normal rules of grammar. The expectation is that the preposition—here identifying the source whence comes grace and peace—is followed by a genitive. Yet, the construction here consists of three nominative articles attached to two participles and one copula following the preposition. This example is particularly notable because in the other two uses of this preposition in the same sentence John follows with the genitive. Indeed, in every other use in the book, other than those accompanying an adverb (14:13; 18:10, 15, 17), he follows the preposition with a genitive. In this way and others, John makes clear that he knows proper Greek grammar. This then raises the question of why he sometimes breaks the rules intentionally.
This grammatical irregularity captures the attention of any Greek student dealing with the text, and it would have been striking and attention-grabbing to native Greek speakers. John is giving an attention-grabbing introduction to the one he will refer to by this tripartite construction at other points in Revelation (as noted in my series on the Trintarian theology of Revelation). The first participle is taken from Exod 3:14 (as in the LXX) as something of a proper name,4 and the rest of the appellation is shaped by this form. The second part of this threefold name is an article functioning as a substantivizing article turning the simple verb into another substantive in a chain of them. John uses the imperfect verb because there is no participle equivalent for this tense (the copula is used in the present, imperfect, and future but not the other tenses). The third part is a present substantival participle used to convey a future sense (as is often the case with the present tense form of “coming”). It is also used to evoke the promise of the divine arrival in the eschaton promised elsewhere and envisioned in this book.
καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων supplies the formally correct grammar immediately after the solecism involving the same preposition. The preposition combined with the genitive signifies the source of grace and peace. On the reference to the Holy Spirit as “seven spirits,” see this part of the aforementioned series.
ἃ is the neuter nominative plural relative pronoun that is the subject of a clause with a gapped verb. That gapped verb is, once again, the copula or verb of being (“who is/are”). The pronoun is neuter because “spirit” is neuter in Greek (as opposed to the Hebrew/Aramaic equivalent, which is feminine).
Verse 5
καὶ ἀπὸ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ identifies the third of the threefold source of grace and peace. Yet again, this source is identified by formally proper grammar of an ἀπόfollowed by a genitive. As I have noted in my series on the Trinitarian theology of Revelation, it is common for God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ to be identified as the source of grace and peace, but this is the only instance where the full threefold source is identified in a letter opening in the NT canon.
ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστὀς are nominatives in apposition to “Jesus Christ.” Normally, one would expect the appositions to be the same case as what they are in apposition to. This once again works to draw attention to the grammatical incongruity, which in this case appears to be done to preserve titles or appellations of Jesus Christ. The construction thus draws attention to said titles or appellations. It is possible, as in the punctuation of the Nestle-Aland text, that these are two separate titles (one a noun and one a substantive adjective). But there is a more consistent structure around three nouns than three nouns and an adjective in the second position for four appellations. Furthermore, it would be reflective of the threefold naming of God the Father earlier in the sentence. The construction here is thus better understood as a second attributive adjectival construction in which both the noun and the adjective that describes its attribute have a definite article. It is translated as “the faithful witness.” As we have noted elsewhere, this is one way in which John implicitly refers to Jesus’s death, and he thus provides the paradigm of how others bear witness unto death.
ὁ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν continues the string of appositional nominatives giving titles of Jesus Christ. We noted in the previous part how this resembles a christological description in Col 1:18. The genitive modifier could be understood as a genitive of separation or a partitive genitive. I incline towards the former while noting that the preposition ἐκ that I have drawn attention to previously does not create the sense of separation; it simply accentuates it. The sense can be present without it. In any case, this is a way of referring to Jesus’s resurrection while implying its link to the resurrection of others.
καὶ ὁ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς is the final appositional nominative followed by two genitives. Both genitives function as genitives of subordination. The earth is subordinated to the kings who are subordinated to the ruler who is Jesus Christ. This conveys his exalted status and is one of the ways the major gospel events are implicitly referenced here.
Τῷ ἀγαπῶντι ἡμᾶς is a substantival dative participle followed by an accusative direct object pronoun of the verbal idea of love. In this context, the dative is an uncommon dative of possession that the later nominatives belong to.
The word order here also calls for comment. This is an example of what has been called “left dislocation.” Left dislocation is the extreme fronting of a sentence constituent to the initial slot to which a trace element in the main clause will refer back. A more frequent case in Revelation will arise in the letters to the individual churches with the refrain about “the one who conquers.” As Runge says, left dislocations “serve to streamline the introduction of an entity into the discourse. They have the effect of either announcing or shifting the topic of the clause that follows. This attracts more attention to the topic than it would have otherwise received with one of the more conventional methods.”5 This is particularly appropriate here as a doxological statement, where the default or unmarked word order would otherwise not have put the dative in a focused position.
καὶ λύσαντι ἡμᾶς is the same kind of construction as the previous clause. What is notable here is that we have another TSKS construction with these substantives: Τῷ ἀγαπῶντι … καὶ λύσαντι. The substantives are singular, personal, and non-proper, meaning they meet all the criteria of the Granville Sharp Rule. The one who loved us and the one who released us are one and the same.
ἐκ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν is a case of the preposition accentuating the sense of separation. Here the separation the one focused on this doxological sentence has achieved involves releasing us from the bondage of our sins (with this second genitive functioning as a possessive).
ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ identifies the instrument by which the one who loved us has released us from our sins. The ἐν takes a dative complement, but here it functions instrumentally rather than to signify location. “Blood” functions as a metonymy for death, and it is another way of referring to his atoning death as one of the major gospel events. The third-person genitive pronoun is possessive, as was the first-person genitive pronoun in the previous clause.
Verse 6
καὶ ἐποίησεν signals another shift from referring to Jesus’s actions via participles to a simple finite verb (which has a syntactically implied subject). The verb is an aorist active indicative 3rd person singular referring to the action of “making” as a whole. The focus of the action here is on what has already been accomplished by the gospel story, though the narration of Revelation shows how it comes to fruition in the course of this extension of the same story.
The shift from participles to the finite verb is a curious one. Its being preceded by the initial conjunction most likely signals that what follows here—until the next dative referring to Jesus, that is—is a parenthetical statement. This further explains what Jesus accomplished, and John grammatically goes out of his way to make this point because it will come up later, particularly in 5:9–10; 20:4–6; and 22:4–5 (also see 3:21).
ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν is a case of what is known as a double accusative construction. The main verb is one that can take a double accusative. The first accusative is the direct object of the verb, and the second is the complement that completes the idea that answers the obvious question: “made us what?”
ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ follows the double accusative with an accusative in simple apposition. It is appositional to “us” rather than the “kingdom,” since it matches the latter in number as well as case. This accusative apposition is then followed with a dative of interest/advantage. We have been made priests for God.
καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ identifies God and the Father of Jesus Christ. The genitive pronoun that follows functions as a relational genitive.
αὐτῷ signals a return to the main sentence with the resumption of the dative from the beginning of the sentence. This is the aforementioned trace element with the pronoun pointing back to what was “dislocated.” It is dative in agreement with the previous reference to Jesus and it similarly functions as a dative of possession befitting a doxological context.
ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος are the nominative subjects of a gapped verb. As is often the case, the verb is implied to be the copula/verb of being. Glory and might are said to “be” to him in the sense that they belong to him. It is proper for him to be ascribed such in worship, of which there is much presented in Revelation.
εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων (literalistically, “into the ages of the ages”) is a fuller version of an idiomatic prepositional phrase. I have noted in published work how this prepositional phrase and other similar ones all have temporal functions. Specifically, they refer to perpetuity, everlastingness, eternity, and so on. The idiom is thus often translated as “forever.” This fuller, more emphatic version involves the repetition of αἰών with the basic prepositional phrase being followed by a genitive that may be described as a genitive of content. One can translate this fuller idiom as “forever and ever” to convey the emphasis.
ἀμήν is an interjection that is immediately followed by another interjection at the start of the next sentence. It is a transliteration of a Hebrew interjection that has the same function of affirmation. More specifically, as in many other doxological statements (in the NT alone, see Rom 11:36; 16:27; Gal 1:5; Eph 3:21; Phil 4:20; 1 Tim 1:17; 1 Pet 4:11; Jude 25; Rev 7:12), it affirms what has preceded.
Verse 7
Ἰδοὺ is formally an aorist imperative form of ὁράω/εἶδον. But in function it is another interjection that functions as an attention-getter.6
Unlike ἀμήν, which tends to direct attention to what precedes, this interjection directs attention to what follows. It is an especially appropriate interjection for a book focused on the visual. It is more common here than anywhere outside of the Gospels (where it is most common in Matthew and Luke).
ἔρχεται is, as with the earlier participial form, a present tense verb with a future sense (plus a gapped subject). This verb is also the classic example of a middle-formed verb, or what is often called “deponent” verb. Such verbs have no distinct active endings. They only exist, at least by the time of the NT, with middle-passive endings, but they do not have middle or passive meanings. This is unsurprising for an intransitive verb like this one, but the issue goes beyond that and becomes rather complicated when certain verbs appear as only this form in certain tenses and not in others. Of course, as Greek students quickly learn, ἔρχομαι is a verb whose only seeming regularity is its irregular forms. This verb also marks the first case of the explicit promise of the divine arrival that was implicit in 1:4.
μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν is a construction that conveys manner or association. In these cases, the preposition is translated as “with.” Unlike other prepositions we have seen to this point, μετά is more flexible and can appear with either genitive or accusative complements. Its function will differ depending on the complement’s case and, of course, the context.
καὶ ὄψεται αὐτὸν illustrates the complications of middle-formed verbs noted earlier. This is the future-tense form of ὁράω, but in the future tense it only appears with middle-passive endings. It remains transitive with the direct object here being the accusative pronoun. The pronoun stands in for the gapped subject of the earlier verb (the one who is coming). This begins a series of constructions in which the object is in the center. In this clause, it is VOS order.
πὰς ὀφθαλμὸς conveys quantitative emphasis of scope, specifically of an all-inclusive scope. With the singular form, one can think of this as referring to “every” individual entity with distributive emphasis. The adjective and noun are nominatives to signify the subject of the verb.
καὶ οἵτινες illustrates a different use of the conjunction. This is an instance of the “ascensive” conjunction, which is intensive in its meaning. The translation often used to signify this is “even.” The plural relative pronoun is again a nominative, but it is the subject of the following verb, rather than the preceding one.
αὐτὸν ἐξεκέντησαν again centralizes the pronoun in an SOV construction that began with the previous words. The pronoun is the accusative direct object of the verb. The verb is an aorist active indicative 3rd person plural. It refers to the action as a whole and can properly be seen as having past reference, namely to Jesus’s death on the cross.
καὶ κόψονται is another example of a verb that otherwise has an active form but which only appears in the middle-passive form in the future tense. This one retains its particular middle meaning of mourning. The imagery is that of beating one’s own breast as a sign of mourning. Such a reflexive action in which one is both the actor and the recipient of the action is a common use of the middle voice.
επ’ αὐτὸν is another instance of a prepositional phrase built with a flexible preposition capable of taking multiple case complements. ἐπί (contracted here due to the next word beginning with a vowel) can take genitive, dative, or accusative complements. The pairing with an accusative complement here indicates the object the action is directed to (i.e., they mourn “over” him). The object is again centralized in a VOS order.
πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς supplies the nominative plural subject of the most recent verb, which was also plural. The genitive signifies some kind of relationship, but it is less clear what it is exactly. One could think of it as an attributive genitive (so “tribes of the earth” could also have the sense of “earthly tribes”). Others see it as signifying location, an unusual use of the genitive.
Ναί, ἀμήν supplies two interjections for the price of one. Both of them are interjections of affirmation. They thus function to provide an emphatic affirmation that what has preceded is a true statement, that it will certainly come to pass.
Verse 8
Ἐγώ εἰμι is an example of a redundant nominative subject. The pronoun is not grammatically required since it is implied by the copula. But the redundant use may make an emphatic statement (“I myself am” or “I am he”). It also may be particularly motivated by allusion to Exod 3:14, part of which was already evoked earlier. There, God says, in Greek, ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν. At the same time, a practical grammatical consideration here helps to identify the subject versus the predicate nominative, even though both will be equated in this construction (see 21:6; in 22:13 the verb is gapped while the pronoun is present).
τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τὸ ὦ supply the predicate nominatives. They are predicates despite being articular since the nominative pronoun takes precedence as the subject. This is also an example of a merism whereby the whole of something is referred to through the use of contrasting, polar opposite, or extreme parts of the whole (in this case, the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet). Later uses will explicate this as encompassing the first and the last, the beginning and the end. The letters are written different here because omega was not spelled out as regularly until the early medieval era.
λέγει is a simple present active indicative 3rd person singular verb. The subject follows in common Greek word order. The present tense encodes imperfective aspect or an internal perspective on the action, often as in progress. One could think of this as an instantaneous present, which is completed once spoken. It also establishes a structure one sees often in prophetic speech that is also used in this book (cf. 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14; 14:13).
κύριος ὁ θεός identifies the nominative subject of the verb. This structure with the article being before “God” rather than “Lord” is standard in the LXX and NT. The former word is treated like a name standing in for YHWH. The other nominative is in apposition further identifying the Lord as “God.” The article here may be functioning monadically in identifying the one and only God.
ὁ ὤν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος presents three nominative substantives in further apposition to the subject. The construction is the same as what we observed in 1:4. It is then followed by ὁ παντοκράτωρ, which supplies a final appositional nominative that will be featured several other times in Revelation (4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21:22).
Mood is the description of the verb in terms of its certainty or the likelihood of its actually happening. The indicative is the primary mood in Greek, particularly as it is the mood of statements of fact, whether it is simply being portrayed that way for the sake of the argument or the author/speaker actually believes it is so.
Granville Sharp, Remarks on the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament, Containing Many Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, from Passages Which Are Wrongly Translated in the Common English Version, 3rd ed. (Durham: Pennington, 1803), 3.
Steven E. Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010), 54.
Brandon D. Smith, The Trinity in the Book of Revelation: Seeing Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in John’s Apocalypse, Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2022), 50–53.
Runge, Discourse Grammar, 290.
For my Hebrew friends, don’t worry; I made one for you too:
