Sermon Tone Analysis

| PREVIOUS | UP | CONTENTS | NEXT |

----

[[@page.3.1.3]][[@bible.87.1.3]]!!!! 3.1.3

- Revelation  [[1:3|bible.87.1.3]]

Blessed /is/ he \\ Luther's comments underscore the need for a consistently literal interpretation of this book: "Even if it were a blessed thing to believe what is contained in it, no man knows what that is."1

For if different interpretive views render wholly different meanings, then what blessing /could/ be derived and how could the prophecy be kept?

How can one keep what one is not sure one has in the first place?One reason for such blessing is undoubtedly to be found in the close ties between this book and all the rest of Scripture: "The reason is easy to understand.

Since so much of this book is based on the Old Testament, a proper study of it will require a study of the Old Testament, resulting in a more comprehensive knowledge of the Bible."2

This is one of seven unique blessings found in Revelation for: #.

He who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy (Rev.

[[1:3|bible.87.1.3]]+).

#.

The dead who die in the Lord during part of the Tribulation (Rev.

[[14:13|bible.87.14.13]]+).

#.

He who watches and keeps his garments (Rev.

[[16:15|bible.87.16.15]]+).

#.

Those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev.

[[19:9|bible.87.19.9]]+).

#.

He who has part in the first resurrection (Rev.

[[20:6|bible.87.20.6]]+).

#.

He who keeps the words of this prophecy (Rev.

[[22:7|bible.87.22.7]]+).

#.

Those who do His commandments (Rev.

[[22:14|bible.87.22.14]]+).

See commentary on /Revelation 1:1/ regarding the perspicuity of Scripture.he

who reads and those who hear \\ The phrase denotes a single reader who reads the letter out loud in the midst of a congregation of listeners.

At the time the book was written, writing materials were expensive and scarce.

Nor was there an inexpensive means for producing copies of a written document--tedious copying by hand being the means of replication.

Generally, a Christian assembly might only have access to a single copy of a document so written works were often read so that their contents might be accessible to the wider assembly.3

the words \\ The message of God is not conveyed by some existential and personal encounter.

Rather, it is conveyed by /words/.

God has specifically chosen normative language as the mode for communicating what He wants us to know and keep.

This is the basis for the Golden Rule of Interpretation discussed in the introduction.Scripture makes plain that the Word of God is a detailed message conveyed by individual /words/, not mere concepts (Jos.

[[8:35|bible.6.8.35]]; Jer.

[[26:2|bible.24.26.2]];

Mtt.

[[5:18|bible.61.5.18]];

Luke [[16:17|bible.63.16.17]];

John [[5:46|bible.64.5.46]];

John [[17:8|bible.64.17.8]];

Acts [[24:14|bible.65.24.14]];

Rom.

[[3:2|bible.66.3.2]];

Rom.

[[16:26|bible.66.16.26]]; 1Cor.

[[14:37|bible.67.14.37]];

Rev. [[22:7|bible.87.22.7]]+,

[[18-19|bible.87.22.18-87.22.19]]+).

Jesus Himself said that not one jot or one tittle will "pass from the law till all be fulfilled" (Mtt.

[[5:18|bible.61.5.18]]).

A "jot" refers to the smallest Hebrew character: י, /yod/.

A "tittle" is the fraction of a pen stroke which distinguishes similar Hebrew characters, for example the tiny overhang in the upper right which distinguishes a dalet ( ד ) from a resh ( ר ).

This tiny pen stroke distinguishes words which appear almost identical, but with meanings as different as "to stand" ( אָמַד [`āmad] ) and "to speak" ( אָמַר [`āmar] ).It has become fashionable to promote the idea that Scripture conveys information primarily at the level of /concepts/ rather than /words/.

But one must appreciate that the building blocks for expressing thoughts are individual words.

And without the precision of individual words, both in their meaning and preservation, the thoughts and intent of the original author /cannot be reliably determined/.

This, in part, explains the emphasis of Scripture on the very words themselves as evidenced by the reliance of Jesus on grammatical subtleties in His arguments employing the Scriptures (Mtt.

[[22:31|bible.61.22.31]],

[[42-45|bible.61.22.42-61.22.45]];

John [[10:35|bible.64.10.35]];

Gal.

[[3:16|bible.69.3.16]]).The importance of the individual words of Scripture is also illustrated by the sober warning which attends those who would add or remove /words/ from this prophecy given to John.

This is the heart of the issue as to which translation is best suited for study.

It is our view, and that of others knowledgeable on the subject, that the /best/ translation is one which follows a policy of /formal equivalence/ where the very meaning of the individual words is preserved as closely as possible.

While it is an undeniable fact that all translations involve interpretation by the translators, some translations involve /more interpretation/ than others.

It is these translations, which employ thought-for-thought /dynamic equivalence/, which are to be avoided:There is an Italian proverb which says, "Translators are traitors" (/Traddutore, traditore/; "Translators, traitors"), and it's true.

All translation loses meaning.

All translators are traitors to the actual meaning.

There is no such thing as a noninterpretive translation. . . .

Are you going to translate words [formal equivalence] and be interpretive, or are you going to translate meaning [dynamic equivalence] and be *more interpretive?*

[emphasis added]4

The concept is this: as a disciple of Jesus Christ, we want the minimum distance between the inspired inerrant text and our own understanding.

A word-for-word (formal equivalence) translation tends to minimize the interpretive layer which separates us from the original.

A thought-for-thought translation (dynamic equivalence) steps in to interpret things for us.

What is particularly damaging about the latter is that ambiguity in the text--involving issues that we as students of the Word need to wrestle with and recognize involves ambiguity--is masked by the interpretive decisions of the thought-for-thought translators.

In effect, they are performing both translation /and interpretation/.

It is the latter which we seek to minimize:Translators have to ask themselves, "What am I going to do with ambiguity?"

If the Greek or Hebrew isn't clear, when it can mean several different things, what am I going to do?

The KJV, NASB, RSV, and ESV generally answer that question, "Leave it alone.

If we can reproduce in English the same ambiguity that is present in the Greek, then we will leave it ambiguous.

We will not make up the reader's mind."

On the other hand, the NIV will not leave any ambiguity.

They make up the reader's mind whenever they feel it is necessary, and the NLT goes to even greater lengths than the NIV.5

One helpful rule of thumb on this matter is as follows: /the only reliable translations for detailed study are those which include italicized words./

These translations use /formal equivalence/ as evidenced by the italicized words which signify phrases and conjunctions added by the translators for clarity of reading, but for which no corresponding words exist in the original language text.

This also helps the careful student to know when he is standing on solid ground (words not in italics) or thin ice (italicized phrases).6

Now it is certainly true that every believer is a "translation" of God's Word and not necessarily a word-for-word representation.

God uses our testimony, even though imperfect, to witness of Christ and the Bible to others around us.

This is as it should be.

We need not always carry a Bible with us and read from it with precision for people to hear and respond in faith.

Yet, when it comes to studying God's Word where we have a choice of which /written text/ to study and how close we adhere to the original, this is another matter entirely.

We should always opt to stay as close to the Words of the Master as possible.This is illustrated by the popular game where people sit in adjacent positions and a story is told by the person on one end of the row of chairs.

Each person in line whispers the story to the next person in line.

When the story reaches the opposite end of the line, it is retold to all.

It is amazing to observe how the story has changed little-by-little as it goes along until significant differences have occurred between its source and its destination.

The student of God's Word ought to be concerned about how many chairs separate him from the Words of the Master.

Some of those chairs might be unavoidable -- perhaps the student is unable to learn the original languages of the Bible so he must depend upon a translation into his own tongue.

Yet why choose to sit two or three chairs /further/ away from the Master by using a paraphrase which allows His Word to be distorted and misunderstood?7 this prophecy \\ This book is not merely an allegory or devotional treatise extolling the eventual victory of good over evil.

The events described within this book are /bona fide/ prophecy and include the prediction of actual historical events.

See /Can't God Prophesy?/and

keep those things which are written \\ /Keep/ is the present active participle τηροῦντες [tērountes] , "while holding fast."

The saints are told to "be continually hanging on to" the things which John writes.

This requires focus and energy and implies the need for watchfulness in order to avoid having them taken away.