Exegetical Toolkit, Part 4
Lexical Semantics
(avg. read time: 15–30 mins.)
Part 1: Introduction and Context
Part 3: Grammatical-Syntactical Analysis
The fourth tool in the toolkit, which could be employed for more granular versions of inductive Bible study and grammatical-syntactical analysis, is what is known as lexical semantics. Lexical semantics is the study of word meanings in their contexts. When people do word studies, they are engaging in lexical semantics of some kind.
It is crucial to remember that word studies must be done with individual contexts in mind, since the meaning of a word is determined by its context. Words have various possible uses that are then delimited by the contexts in which they appear. There are also words often associated with each other and with various concepts so that they form networks of meaning. These networks are shaped by various levels of context as well, since authors communicate in a context in which some networks become conventional, and the author may use those networks, they may subvert them, or they may seek to form new networks with the existing networks in mind.
Once again, this is a form of exegesis for which learning the original languages enables the best use. One can do a limited form of this in one’s native language, but this form inevitably faces the obstacle of translation decisions, as words are not always translated the same way (rightly so) because of their different functions in different contexts, and a lack of knowledge of the original terms can mean missing when terms are used because of the different translations. There are tools available that enable one to engage in this without a more extensive knowledge of the original languages (such as Blue Letter Bible and STEP Bible with supplementation from lexica), and concordances can help in this regard, although they do not always give the most accurate translations of the various uses.
In line with the various levels of context, word studies can be performed at those various levels, though some may be applicable and others not for specific instances. One can study the use of words in the immediate context, if the word is repeated. One can study the use of words in a larger unit or the entirety of a book. If an author wrote multiple books, one can study the use of words in those other books. One can also study the use of words by other authors in the larger canonical context. And since those texts were written in a communicative context in which the words employed were already in use by others, one can study the use of words in other texts written in the same language. It can also be profitable to consider how similar words are used in different languages. For example, if a Semitic author is writing in Greek, it can be helpful to consider how similar words used in a Semitic language might influence their usage of words in Greek. This can also be helpful for considering how ancient translations are done when we compare Hebrew terms with their Septuagintal translations, and so on.
Similarly, one can consider doing word studies of synonyms and cognates (such as I have noted here in how different terms could be used for resurrection). The same can also be done with antonyms of words. Or if one is dealing with a compound verb or a verb that could be compounded, it can be useful to consider how and when different compounds and modified forms of a term may appear. Words of varying levels of significance can also be studied, depending on how broad or deep you want your study to be.
Of course, a risk in word studies is how susceptible they are to fallacies, such as D. A. Carson has outlined in his helpful book Exegetical Fallacies. I will not go over all of these here, but it is helpful to be aware of a sample of them. One that is especially common is the root/etymological fallacy, according to which an exegete believes that one can determine the meaning of the word through appeal to the root of the word rather than through considering its usage in context. An opposite error—anachronism—is especially common in preaching as some think that later meanings or cognates of a word are applicable in an earlier context (e.g., thinking that relating δύναμις [dynamis] to dynamite gives one an accurate picture of what the former word meant). And there is the famous fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer, wherein one assumes that all the nuances of a word’s meanings (i.e., its larger semantic range) apply in each instance it appears, even though context limits the applicable semantic range. An opposite fallacy to this is the “one meaning fallacy,” wherein sometimes people think that a word has only one meaning, regardless of context. All this is to highlight the importance of being careful in conducting such a study and being attentive to logical considerations.
I have already mentioned some tools that can be used for word study, including online ones. I listed some lexica in the previous entry of this series. There are also times when text-critical concerns will affect whether a particular term is used in a particular text. It should also be remembered that lexica may not represent the full nuance and contextual significance of a word, and the examples they provide may not always be accurate (for example, I have registered my disagreement with how lexica cite Heb 1:2 and 11:3 as spatial uses of αἰών in one of my articles). But the best lexica provide a good range of possible meanings for a term in its historical usage (i.e., a term’s semantic range). Various kinds of Bible software can be helpful, but I am not the person to ask about this. If you want to study cognates, synonyms, and antonyms, the Louw & Nida lexicon mentioned previously can be helpful for how it arranges entries by “semantic domains.” Spiros Sodhiates’s The Comple Word Study Dictionary can also be helpful in this regard.
For broader study that includes and sometimes goes beyond the biblical canon, there are many specialized studies available for various words. You simply need to know what word you are looking for and find if someone has done in-depth work on it. Some of these studies may even be referenced in critical commentaries that focus on grammatical-syntactical analysis, such as I listed in the previous entry. Exegetical and theological dictionaries can also be helpful, including the following:
Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament
New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
Theological Lexicon of the New Testament
Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (since I forgot to mention it last time)
Various databases are also useful for study. Some of them focus on longer texts like Perseus (especially here) and the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. If you are examining Aramaic, particularly the Targumim of the OT, the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon is a useful tool (for the Targumim specifically, see here). Other databases focus on papyri, such as this one that partners with a number of institutions. Other databases focus on inscriptions, such as the Packard Humanities Institute and Trismegistos (I found inscriptions a helpful resource for my first published article on Hebrews, linked above, and work I did on 1 Cor 15 excerpted here). Numismatics, the study of coins, is also relevant for studying some terms, though they tend to be more useful for other historical studies (as I have tried to illustrate here with links to relevant databases).
Application to Rev 1:1–8
ἀποκάλυψις
A lot of the more interesting terms or phrases in this section are ones I have involved in studies elsewhere (for other studies focusing on particular terms or kinds of terms in Revelation specifically, see the series on Trinitarian theology here, as well as posts here, here, and here). I will focus here on but three examples of individual words and two examples of using this kind of study for groups of words. The first example is the opening word whence derives the title of the Apocalypse: ἀποκάλυψις. I will provide only an overview here, but each instance can be further unpacked/exegeted. The noun itself is not common in extant literature outside of Christian texts. Most of the few pre-NT references are specifically from the LXX and Jewish texts, such as reference to nakedness as an extension of the idea of being uncovered (1 Kgdms 20:30), revelation of one’s deeds at the end of life (Sir 11:27), and revelation/disclosure of divine mysteries to Enoch (Jub. 4:18). In the NT, it is used for light for revelation (Luke 2:32), revelation of God’s judgment (Rom 2:5), the unveiling/revelation of the children of God in the eschaton (Rom 8:19), the revelation/making known of what was once a mystery (Rom 16:25; Eph 3:3), the coming manifestation of Jesus Christ (1 Cor 1:7; 2 Thess 1:7; 1 Pet 1:7, 13), a special revelation delivered to a congregation (1 Cor 14:6, 26), the Lord’s revelations that are paired with visions (2 Cor 12:1, 7), the appearance of Jesus Christ to Paul (Gal 1:12; cf. 2:2), that which comes from the Spirit in growing the knowledge of God (Eph 1:17), and the manifestation of the Lord’s glory at his Second Coming (1 Pet 4:13).
We should also consider the verbal equivalent, ἀποκαλύπτω, since the noun conveys a verbal idea, the subject of which in Rev 1:1 is Jesus Christ. The verb is more common than the noun in other Greek texts, though it is still most common in Jewish and Christian texts. There is again not a wide variety of senses, as the uses of the term refer to uncovering/unveiling, disclosing, revealing, or making known (Herodotus 1.119; Plato, Prot. 352a; Gorg. 455d; Plutarch, Alex. 55.8). In the LXX, it has many uses:
often in the phrase for uncovering/exposing nakedness (Exod 20:26; Lev 18:6–19; 20:11, 17–21; Deut 23:1 [22:30 MT]; 27:20; Ezek 16:36–37, 57; 22:10; 23:10, 18, 29; cf. Hos 2:10)
uncovering/unveiling a woman’s head during a trial (Num 5:18)
opening eyes (Num 22:31; 24:4, 16; Ps 118:18 [119:18 MT])
telling or reporting what is supposed to be secret (Josh 2:20; cf. Prov 11:13; Sir 1:30; 4:18; 22:22)
uncovering Boaz’s feet (Ruth 3:4, 7)
disclosure of information (Ruth 4:4; 1 Kgdms 20:2, 13; 22:8, 17)
God revealing himself/making himself known (1 Kgdms 2:27; 3:21; 9:15; 2 Kgdms 7:27)
making known the word of the Lord (1 Kgdms 3:7; Dan 10:1)
exposing or shaming oneself (2 Kgdms 6:20, 22)
stripping bare (Job 41:13; Ps 28:9 [29:9 MT]; Isa 3:17; Jer 13:26; Nah 2:7; 3:5)
uncovering/laying bare foundations (2 Sam 22:16; Ezek 13:14; Mic 1:6)
making bare or entrusting one’s way (Ps 36:5 [37:5 MT]; Jer 11:20; 20:12)
the Lord revealing/making known his righteousness/justice/mercy (Ps 97:2 [98:2 MT]; Isa 56:1)
open rebuke (Prov 27:5)
the appearance of goats from Galilee (Cant 4:1)
unveiling (Isa 47:2)
the Lord revealing/laying bare his arm (Isa 52:10; 53:1)
exposing iniquity (Lam 2:14; 4:22; Ezek 21:24; Hos 7:1)
God’s revelation/disclosure of mysteries (Dan 2:19, 22, 28–30, 47)
that which is to be revealed/made manifest at the end (Dan 11:35)
disclosing/making known instruction (Amos 3:7)
revealing or telling of a quarrel (Sir 6:9).
In the NT, besides the Scripture quote of Isa 53:1 (John 12:38), we see it used for unveiling/uncovering what was once veiled/covered up (Matt 10:26 // Luke 12:2; Gal 3:23; Eph 3:5), as a way of making known (Matt 11:25 // Luke 10:21, Matt 11:27 // Luke 10:22; Matt 16:17), disclosing what is in the heart (Luke 2:35), the manifestation of the Son of Man (Luke 17:30), God revealing/making known his righteousness/justice (Rom 1:17) as well as his wrath (Rom 1:18), the coming unveiling/manifestation/revelation of glory (Rom 8:18; 1 Pet 5:1), God’s action of making known through the Spirit (1 Cor 2:10), works being shown for what they are by fire (1 Cor 3:13), revelation delivered to a congregation (1 Cor 14:30), God’s revelation of Jesus in Paul (Gal 1:16), God’s action of making known (Phil 3:15), the manifestation/appearance/disclosure of the man of lawlessness (2 Thess 2:3, 6, 8), the manifestation of the coming salvation (1 Pet 1:5), what was shown/made known to the prophets (1 Pet 1:12). Interestingly, the verb never appears in Revelation.
Although a lot of these uses overlap in their senses, the term obviously cannot mean all of these things at once in this specific instance, even for a term with a more limited semantic range than many others we might review. In this context, as a designation for the work as a whole, it is a disclosure, a making known, an unveiling by God’s initiative through the action of Jesus Christ to allow John—and, by extension, the audience—to see behind the curtain of empirical reality in order to see the transcendent reality at work behind and above the scenes. This includes such unveiling of what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen, insofar as God-and-Jesus determines to make it known. This is consistent both with the particular context of Revelation and how God-and-Jesus’s action is characterized therein as well as with other uses of the terminology in the LXX and NT. I have used “God-and-Jesus” here to preserve what I have observed in the grammatical-syntactical analysis of how Jesus is the subject of the verbal idea and God the Father is the source thereof. This is a oneness of action (extending from oneness of being), though precise roles in economic/external terms may be described variously (as here), much like God’s action in the Spirit elsewhere or the appearance of Jesus to Paul that is also described as God’s action in Galatians.
σημαίνω
The second example is σημαίνω, also from Rev 1:1. The term only appears here in Revelation, but it appears three other times in Johannine literature (John 12:33; 18:32; 21:19), as well as twice in Acts (11:28; 25:27). It is related to the noun σημεῖον, which we have reviewed in the Gospel of John here. It can have the sense of signifying, particularly by use of signs/symbols. As such, it is sometimes translated as “indicate” in John 12:33; 18:32; and 21:19, wherein Jesus signifies the kind of death he is going to die or indicating the kind of death Peter is going to die. This nuance is applicable because Jesus is not speaking as directly here as he does elsewhere, and the author only realized in hindsight what he was talking about. In Acts, both uses are not of indirect speech, but they involve making something known or explaining by the Spirit (11:28) or by articulating charges (25:27).
In other contexts outside of the NT, it could refer to the uses of signs or indications (Homer, Il. 23.358; Od. 12.26; Herodotus 1.5; Aeschylus, Ag. 293, 497; Sophocles, Trach. 345; Euripides, Andr. 265; Xenophon, Mem. 1.1.2; Anab. 6.1.31; Heraclitus, fr. 93). It could be used for signaling, though this tends to be in contexts of battle or some other kind of coordinated operation (Homer, Il. 21.445; Od. 22.450; Herodotus 1.116; 6.78; 8.11; Xenophon, Anab. 4.2.1; 6.1.24). Of course, it can also involve interpretation, explanation, or articulation so as to make something specific and/or clear (Herodotus 1.108; 3.106), including of signs, so that it may be translated as something like “make known” or the verb forms of the aforementioned words. A less common use involves providing sign, mark, or seal, including to seal something up (Herodotus 2.38; Aristophanes, Lys. 1196), but that is obviously not applicable here. This is but a tiny sampling of the tens of thousands of references available in the TLG database, which could obviously be expanded still further. Of these, over 2,000 references are from sources prior to the NT.
If we restrict our analysis outside of the NT to texts more directly informing it, we could consider the LXX as an example. Some examples of using this verb for making something known, showing it, or telling it include Exod 18:20; Neh 8:15; Esth 2:22; Dan 2:15, 23, 30, and 45.1 Similarly, the term may be used for something previously mentioned (2 Macc 2:1; 11:17). Number 10:9 supplies an example of using a signal with a trumpet (cf. Josh 6:8; Judg 7:21 [possibly]; 2 Chr 13:12; Job 39:24–25; Jer 4:5; 6:1; Ezek 33:3, 6; Zech 10:8). Others refer to some other kind of significant sound (Judg 7:21 [possibly]; Ezra 3:11) or signal (Prov 6:13).
Obviously, not all of these meanings are applicable here. The most likely are either those involving using signs or making known. These can, of course, be combined, since signs can be used for making known. The only question in that case is where the emphasis might be. Although Revelation is obviously full of symbols, the purpose of it being a “revelation” (ἀποκάλυψις) is to make it known, to articulate and explain the fundamental message communicated therein. The two terms reinforce each other. In this way, the use of the term is like some of the examples of the LXX that refer to knowing God’s commands and God making things known in revelation, as in the Theodotion version of Daniel noted above.
δοῦλος
Unlike the previous two terms, this one appears many times elsewhere in Revelation. It refers to a slave, bondman/bondwoman, subject, or adjectival equivalents of the same. That is, with various shades of nuance, it refers to one who is bound in service to another. It could thus be used for anyone in servitude or in a servile condition. For this reason, it is also translated as “servant” today, but translators debate whether this is proper to convey the connotation.2
The term is used twice in v. 1 to refer to those in service to God-and-Jesus and to John as a specific slave/servant of God. This use also reflects how these people are referred to in 22:6 (that is, of the Lord God), the last use of the term, as well as multiple other cases in between (7:3 [of God]; 19:3 [of God], 5 [of God]; 22:3 [of God and the Lamb]). Similarly, in the seven letters, it appears once in the letter to Thyatira in reference to how “Jezebel” is leading astray those who were supposed to be in service to Jesus (2:20). There are multiple times when it is part of a phrase referring to slaves in contrast to the free while stating that something affects them both all the same (6:15; 13:16; 19:18). Other times, it refers to the forebears in the faith who were in service to God, namely the prophets (10:7; 11:18) and Moses most specifically (15:3). A compound form (σύνδουλος) also refers to those classified the same way, whether other Christians (6:11) or angels (19:10; 22:9).
The broader use of the term in the NT tracks with what Revelation shows. Most often, it refers to those who bound in service to humans (Matt 8:9 // Luke 7:8; Matt 13:27–28; 18:23, 26–28, 32; 21:34–36 // Mark 12:2, 4 // Luke 20:10–11; Matt 22:3–4, 6, 8, 10 // Luke 14:17, 21–23; Matt 25:14, 19, 21, 23, 26, 30 // Luke 19:13, 15, 17, 22; 26:51 // Mark 14:47 // Luke 22:50; Luke 7:2–3, 10; 15:22; 17:7, 9–10; John 4:51; 18:10 [2x], 18, 26; 1 Cor 7:21–23; Eph 6:5; Col 4:1; 1 Tim 6:1; Titus 2:9; Phlm 16). Mary uses the feminine form as a self-description (Luke 1:38, 48). Jesus uses it alongside “disciple” as a reference to those who follow him (Matt 10:24–25; 24:45–46, 48, 50 // Luke 12:43, 45–47; Mark 13:34; Luke 12:37; John 13:16; 15:20). Indeed, he says in his teaching that one who wants to be first among the disciples shall be a slave (Matt 20:27 // Mark 10:44). Jesus’s use of the term in his parable in Matt 21:34–36 // Mark 12:2, 4 // Luke 20:10–11 analogizes the prophets sent to the people of Israel as those bound in service to their master. Simeon refers to himself as one bound in service to the Lord (Luke 2:29). He also uses the term to contrast the slave with the son (John 8:35; cf. Gal 4:1, 7) or slaves with friends (John 15:15 [2x]). Of course, it can also be used negatively to refer to someone enslaved to sin (John 8:34; Rom 6:17, 19, 20; 2 Pet 2:19), and it can be used positively for someone enslaved to righteousness/justice (Rom 6:19), or as a reference to either condition (Rom 6:16). Beyond the Gospels, it could be used in OT quotations to refer to those in service to God (Acts 2:18 [2x]), as a self-description such followers use for themselves (Acts 4:29; Rom 1:1; Gal 1:10; Phil 1:1; Titus 1:1; Jas 1:1; 2 Pet 1:1; Jude 1), or as a description used for them (Acts 16:17; 1 Cor 7:22; Eph 6:6; Col 4:12; 2 Tim 2:24; 1 Pet 2:16). It could be used in pairs of references to the slave and the free (1 Cor 7:22; 12:13; Gal 3:28; Eph 6:8; Col 3:11). Sometimes, it refers to Christians serving each other (including some of the references beyond the Gospels to those bound in service to humans, esp. Phlm 16, or at least the applications thereof), particularly of the leaders as slaves (2 Cor 4:5). It is also used as a description of Jesus in his incarnation for the “form” he took (Phil 2:7). The compound form that appears in Revelation also appears in reference to fellow slaves (Matt 18:28–29, 31, 33; 24:49) and fellow ministers in the Lord (Col 1:7; 4:7).
The verbal equivalent—δουλεύω—does not appear in Revelation, but it is used elsewhere in the NT. Naturally, the root image is of bonded service to another (Matt 6:24 // Luke 16:13), though a son in one of Jesus’s parables uses it for himself in relation to his father (Luke 15:29). It is used for service to God or whatever else one ultimately serves (Matt 6:24 // Luke 16:13; Acts 20:19; Gal 4:8–9; Col 3:24; 1 Thess 1:9). The Jews use it to say they have never been enslaved to anyone (John 8:33), which leads into Jesus’s statements from the same chapter noted above. It appears in a Scripture reference to Israel’s enslavement (Acts 7:7) or to Esau serving Jacob (Rom 9:12). Similarly, Paul uses it to refer allegorically to Hagar and her enslavement with her children (Gal 4:25). It is used negatively for being bound in service to sin (Rom 6:6; 16:18; Titus 3:3), but the same author uses it for being bound in service to God (Rom 7:6, 25; 12:11; 14:18). It can also be used for service to one another (Gal 5:13) or to another Christian (1 Tim 6:2). Another instance uses these latter senses together (Eph 6:7). Unsurprisingly, then, as with Paul’s other uses of associated terms, it can apply to ministry (Phil 2:22). However, a related noun—δουλεία—in reference to slavery is only used in a negative sense whenever it appears in the NT (Rom 8:15, 21; Gal 4:24; 5:1; Heb 2:15).
Another word could be used for “servant”—διάκονος—but it never appears in Revelation. Lest one think this is the more appropriate word to use for the supposedly less severe “servant” and to reserve the other noun for “slave,” it is important not to bifurcate these terms too strictly. We see in some contexts it is used alongside the key term with fundamentally the same meaning (Col 1:7; 4:7), particularly in Jesus’s teaching about the greatest one being a servant (Matt 20:26 // Mark 10:43; Matt 23:11; Mark 9:35). In other cases, it is arguably so, though there may be distinctions (Matt 22:13). It is similarly used of those serving other humans (John 2:5, 9), and of being in service to God/Jesus (John 12:26; 1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4; 11:23; Eph 3:7; 6:21). Paul uses it in reference to authority as a servant of God (Rom 13:4). It is also used in reference to Christ being a servant (Rom 15:8), including a denial that he is a servant of sin (Gal 2:17). Of course, it can refer to negative examples of servants (2 Cor 11:15). It is a description of a minister like Paul (Col 1:23, 25; 1 Tim 4:6). Finally, this is the term whence we derive “deacon” (Rom 16:1; 1 Tim 3:8, 12). The associated noun διακονία could also refer to service or ministry (Luke 10:40; Acts 1:17, 25; 6:1, 4; 11:29; 12:25; 20:24; 21:19; Rom 11:13; 12:7; 15:31; 1 Cor 12:5; 16:15; 2 Cor 3:7–9; 4:1; 5:18; 6:3; 8:4; 9:1, 12–13; 11:8; Eph 4:12; Col 4:17; 1 Tim 1:12; 2 Tim 4:5, 11; Heb 1:14), including in Revelation (2:19). The verbal equivalent—διακονέω—does not appear in Revelation. Yet it appears in similar contexts as we have noted previously. It can simply refer to people (Matt 8:15 // Mark 1:31 // Luke 4:39; Matt 25:44; 27:55 // Mark 15:41; Luke 8:3; 10:40; 12:37; 17:8; John 12:2) or angels (Matt 4:11 // Mark 1:13) waiting on/serving someone else (usually Jesus). It describes Jesus’s own action (Matt 20:28 // Mark 10:45 // Luke 22:27), and it should likewise describe his followers (Luke 22:26–27; John 12:26). It can refer to believers serving other believers (Acts 6:2; 19:22; Rom 15:25; Phlm 13; Heb 6:10; 1 Pet 4:10–11), and it serves as a description of ministry (2 Cor 3:3; 8:19–20; 1 Tim 3:10, 13; 2 Tim 1:18). It is even used as a description of the prophets who are forebears in the faith (1 Pet 1:12).
I will not review here all the hundreds of uses in the LXX, which fit what we have already observed generally speaking (though there are many other uses of referring to people who are not formally slaves/servants but are subjects or servile to a person’s authority and will). But I do want to illustrate how the terminology is used in reference to service to God. In this way, our key noun is used for reference to God’s people (Deut 32:36; 1 Kgs 8:30, 36, 52, 59; 2 Kgs 9:7; 2 Chr 6:23; Ezra 5:11; Neh 2:20; Pss 33:23; 68:37; 78:2, 10; 89:13, 16; 101:15, 29; 104:25; 122:2; 133:1; 134:1, 14; 135:22; Isa 48:20; 49:3; 56:6; 63:17; 65:9; Jer 3:22; 26:27; Ezek 28:25; Joel 2:29). It is also used for individuals like Abraham (Ps 104:6), Moses (1 Kgs 8:53, 56; 2 Kgs 18:12; Neh 9:14; 10:29; Ps 104:26, 42; Dan 9:11), Joshua (Josh 24:29; Judg 2:8), Samson (Judg 15:18), Hannah (1 Sam 1:11), Samuel (1 Sam 3:9–10), Saul (1 Sam 14:41), David (1 Sam 23:10–11; 25:39; 2 Sam 7:19–21, 25, 27–29 // 1 Chr 17:18, 26; 2 Sam 24:10; 1 Kgs 3:6; 8:24–25, 66; 2 Kgs 8:19 // 2 Chr 6:42; Pss 35:1; 77:70; 88:40, 51; 131:10; 143:10), Solomon (1 Kgs 3:7–9; 8:23; cf. 8:28–29), Elijah (1 Kgs 21:28; 2 Kgs 9:36; 10:10), Jonah son of Amittai (2 Kgs 14:25), Nehemiah (Neh 1:6, 11), Daniel’s friends (Dan 3:26), Daniel (Dan 6:20), and Zerubbabel (Hag 2:23). In other cases, including some of those noted above, we see this as a self-reference (see also Pss 18:12, 14; 26:9; 30:17; 34:27; 79:5; 85:2, 4; 108:28; 115:7; 118:17, 23, 38, 49, 65, 76, 84, 122, 124–125, 135, 140, 176; 142:2, 12; Dan 9:17; Jon 1:9). Sometimes, God himself describes individuals in this way (2 Sam 3:18; 7:5, 8 // 1 Chr 17:7; 1 Kgs 11:13, 32, 34, 36, 38; 2 Kgs 19:34; 20:6; 21:8; Ps 88:4, 21; Isa 42:19; 49:5; Ezek 34:23; 37:24–25; Zech 3:8). God and others refer to the prophets as those in service to him (2 Kgs 17:13, 23; 21:10; 24:2; Ezra 9:11; Jer 7:25; 25:4; Ezek 38:17; Dan 9:6, 10; Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6). An analogous use refers to those who serve Baal (2 Kgs 10:19, 21–23).
The verb has a similar range to what we have observed previously, including the LXX’s greater tendency to use it for reference to subjects/subjugation. It is used for service to God as well (Judg 2:7; 1 Sam 7:3–4; 12:10, 14, 20, 23–24; 1 Chr 28:9; 2 Chr 30:8; 33:16; 34:33; Job 21:15; 36:11; Pss 2:11; 21:31; 99:2; 101:23; Isa 19:23; 53:11; 56:6; 65:8, 13–15; Ezek 20:40; Zeph 3:9; Mal 3:14). Alternatively, it could be used for service to other gods (Deut 28:64; 1 Sam 8:8; 12:10; 26:19; 1 Kgs 9:6, 9; 16:31; 22:53; 2 Kgs 10:18; 17:41; 21:3; 2 Chr 7:22; 24:18; 33:3, 22; Ps 105:36; Jer 5:19; 8:2; 11:10; 13:10; 16:11, 13; 22:9; 25:6; cf. Jer 42:15) or at least for not serving God (Judg 10:6; 1 Sam 2:24; Neh 9:35; Jer 2:20). The associated noun is most often used for reference to slavery as such, particularly Israel’s slavery in Egypt from which God redeemed, but it could also be used for service of God in Jerusalem (Ezra 6:18). The other noun is only rarely used in the LXX (most of the references appear in Esther), whereas the associated terms do not appear at all.
We could expand the word study further to include other Greek literature, but none are as pertinent as these two bodies of literature, and this has already gotten to be quite extensive. Revelation fits the tendencies of the OT/LXX and the rest of the NT in its description of those faithful to God as his slaves/servants (or subjects). This is a relative description that also relativizes hierarchies and other relationships among the people of God, but it is not obviously a way of simplistically identifying God’s people with a class of people as such. It is simply that relative to God, all should be subject to his will and bound in service to him, including (especially) leaders like John. As later parts of Revelation make clear, even the angels are as fellow slaves/servants to God and his will. This common bond of service as subjects to God’s will links one to angels in heaven and to the forebears in faith like the prophets. While it is not the all-encompassing identifier of the faithful—as there are other ways of describing the same within Revelation and other texts—it is one that applies to the people of God in both the present age and in the everlasting age to come (as the end of Revelation shows). While translating it as “servant” or “slave” is appropriate, the sense of “subject” should also be remembered, particularly in context of reference to the kingdom or kingship imagery (as in Rev 22:3, for example). Those who worship God are also those who serve him, being bound to his will, and live as his subjects. It is to such people that the Apocalypse is addressed, being first delivered to John, who is one like us.
“The One Who Is, the One Who Was, and the One Who Is Coming”
The designation of God in 1:4 is a phrase I have commented on elsewhere. But for the purpose of lexical semantics, we can note other texts that are similar to it. David Aune has a particularly helpful analysis of other texts in his commentary, including of similar but not identical phrases in Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic texts.3 The Exod. Rabb. 3:14 unpacks the name of God with this kind of threefold application. While the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan does not follow suit in the Exodus text, one can find something similar in its version of Deut. 32:39. The former text proceeds from past to present to future, whereas the latter is similar in order of reference to Revelation. But both are differentiated from Rev 1:4 in that they simply say God “will be” rather than Revelation’s “is coming.”
The reference to God as “the one who is” with this particular Greek phrase (ὁ ὤν) comes from Exod 3:14, where it is used twice. The absolute use is not found anywhere else prior, not even in references to the Greek gods. Some later uses directly quote this use from Exod 3:14 (Philo, Worse 160; Names 11; Dreams 1.231; Moses 1.75; Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 63.7, 11, 17; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1.25.166.4). Others are not as directly linked to it, but the influence is still apparent in how they refer to God as “the one who is” (Philo, Creation 172; Allegorical Interpretation 3.181; Unchangeable 110; Names 12; Abraham 121; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 1.8.71.2). Given Revelation’s other links with the OT (for a non-comprehensive but still extensive account, see here), it is reasonable to see this use of the participial phrase as an extension of that text.
One cannot say the same for the other two parts. While they have rough equivalents like statements I noted above, as well as sources Aune notes (like magical papyri), in no other case in extant literature is ὁ ἦν used in this way before Revelation (as the copula is either preceded by a relative pronoun or followed by some other element). Nor is the absolute use of ὁ ἐρχόμενος (i.e., without further modification such as “in the name of the Lord”) in evidence prior to Revelation. Other uses of this threefold designation only appear in texts drawing from Revelation (Hippolytus, Noet. 6.2; Athanasius, C. Ar. 1.11.5; Ep. Serap. 2.2.3; Basil, Eun. 29.677; Didymus, Comm. Zach. 1.153; Cyril of Alexandria Dial. Trin. 2.453e; 5.568c; Glaph. 9.432). Whether it was drawn or modified from pre-existing liturgy, like the Hebrew and Aramaic equivalents may suggest, it was specifically through Revelation that the formula became influential for subsequent Christian writings. This is one of the examples of Revelation’s theological impact on later Christians, no matter their difficulties with various details in the book.
As we have observed elsewhere, the phrase is a way of referring to God’s transcendence and eternality in encompassing the past, present, and future in being, simply, the one who is, the “I am.” To construct this larger phrase, John had to break some conventions. On the one hand, he had to use the article as a substantivizer to make the imperfect copula function as a substantive. And instead of using the future (participial) form of the copula that would be expected (and which was used in equivalent statements in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic), he used a present-tense verb with a future sense as a way of also invoking the promise of the eschatological coming spoken elsewhere and included in the climax of this book.
Alpha and Omega
Another distinctive way of referring to God in Revelation is as the Alpha and the Omega, which has its first appearance in 1:8. This phrasing is not found anywhere else in the NT. In fact, the phrase does not appear anywhere in extant Greek literature before Revelation. Again, Aune has a helpful review of appearances of similar constructions in magical papyri and equivalent ideas.4 For example, he makes an interesting statement that “In Jewish alphabet symbolism, the Hebrew אמת’emet, ‘truth,’ was understood as a way of designating God as beginning, middle, and end, because א was the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, מ the middle letter, and ת the last letter.”5 Of course, it is unclear how far back this idea goes.
Otherwise, when we review other uses, we find this to be yet another case in which Revelation has had particular influence on theological and christological statements (Irenaeus, Haer. 1.8.4, 12; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 1.6.36.1; Strom. 4.25.157.1; 6.16.141.7; Hippolytus, Haer. 6.49.5; 50.3; Eusebius, Comm. Isa. 2.34; Epiphanius, Pan. 50.20.3). Sometimes studies in lexical semantics do less to illuminate a particular use by reference to previous uses than they do to highlight evidence of how a text was received and referenced after its distribution. In any case, we have already reviewed the use of this phrase elsewhere in the same contexts as the previous description of God.
The Daniel references are from Theodotion, but the OG translation uses γνωρίζω in these texts.
On the one hand, one should not import all connotations and concepts of slavery as we tend to associate with it today, especially in the West. On the other hand, to simply render it as “servant” without attending to its broader use, depending on the connotations one associates with “servant,” arguably does not properly capture the nuances either.
David E. Aune, Revelation 1–5, WBC 52A (Dallas: Word, 1997), 30–33.
Aune, Revelation 1–5, 57.
Aune, Revelation 1–5, 57.