To “come” or to “come and see” that is the question

I’m a majority text person.  Usually.  I guess.
 
So imagine my predicament when I find myself in the midst of a debate and someone points out that I’m debating in favor of the minority text, and they are debating in favor of the majority text.  Usually the differences in translations do not make a serious difference.  You’ve all heard it before, say it with me, "There are no serious differences in doctrinal issues due to different translations."  This is not a serious doctrinal issue, but the language of the majority text versus the minority text could affect our understanding of Revelation 6 in a drastic way.
 
Note:  KJV is majority text, newer versions are minority text.
 
Here is the post that I posted stating my view on the phrase "come" or "come and see" as found in Revelation 6.
 
As we strip away what is not there in the text and only focus on
what is there, I think we may come to some different conclusions.

First off, it is "Come". It is a command to come forth. After the
command is given each time, a colored horse with a rider rides
forth. The simple application is that each of the four living
creatures has a role to play in summoning each of the four horsemen
to ride forth.

But, the scroll is in the hands of the Lamb. The opening of the
seals does not initiate the riding forth of the horsemen. The seal
is opened, the living creature says, "Come", and the horseman rides
forth. All seven seals are on the outside of the scroll, meaning
that the scroll cannot be opened until all seven seals have been
broken by the Lamb. The opening of the first seal does not allow
the rider on the white horse to go riding out of the scroll. The
rider goes forth, but not from the scroll. The rider goes forth
from the summoning command of the living creature.

As each seal is broken, we get closer to the time of the opening of
the scroll, but not one part of the scroll is opened until the
opening of the seventh seal. All seven seals are on the outside
since John could see all seven seals before any were broken.

As each seal is broken, we move closer to the day of His wrath, that
is, the day of the LORD. We see signs of the antichrist in the
seals showing that we are getting very close to the revelation of
the LORD Jesus Christ. Antichrist (and antichrists) here on the
earth is a sign that it is the last time, I John 2:18. As each seal
is broken and we move through the great tribulation, we know that we
are getting closer and closer to the opening of the scroll and the
revelation of the LORD Jesus Christ.

And just to throw in a bonus, my view of the seals is that they all
occur in the last half of Daniel’s seventieth week. The antichrist
begins to conquer at the midpoint (seal #1), the false peace is
taken from the earth (seal #2), there is an imposition of food
restrictions (seal #3), he puts one fourth of the earth’s population
to death (seal #4), we are officially in the time of the great
tribulation (seal #5).

Have fun and stay busy – Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman


 
Now here is the rebuttal from a worthy poster.
 
Darrin,

The KJV reads differently because it uses a different Greek textual
stream. Most all modern versions use a textual stream that can be
traced back to Alexandria, Egypt. The KJV uses the Textus
Recepetus. I have both. The Alexandrian stream reads, "erchou"
(come). The Textus Receptus reads, "erchou kai blepo" (come and see).

I trust the Textus Receptus underlying the KJV more than the
Alexandrian based texts.

> First off, it is "Come". It is a command to come forth. After the
> command is given each time, a colored horse with a rider rides
> forth. The simple application is that each of the four living
> creatures has a role to play in summoning each of the four horsemen
> to ride forth.<<

But if it is "come and see," that is addressing John to observe the
vision. Rev. 6:1-2 reads, ". . . come and see. And I saw, and
behold a white horse. . . ." If the KJV is correct you can’t claim
it is a command for the rider to come, "come and see" relates to "I
saw." which is referencing John’s visual observation.

The Alexandrian based stream used by the Nestle-Aland text tends to
be greatly abbrievated in comparison to the Textus Receptus. Modern
versions use the Nestle-Aland Greek, which in recent editions has had
to make numerous changes agreeing with the Textus Receptus as new
information comes to light.

> But, the scroll is in the hands of the Lamb. The opening of the
> seals does not initiate the riding forth of the horsemen. The seal
> is opened, the living creature says, "Come", and the horseman rides
> forth.<<

Again, I see it as speaking to John to come and see, then he receives
a vision. I don’t think the living creature commands the rider to
ride. Giving a command would mean this heavenly being is the source
causing the the actions of the rider. I tend to see Jesus revealing
what is going to happen when he opens the seals, not that he is the
author behind it.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ means Jesus is revealing what will
happen. Opening seals is his revealing events done by men and evil
spirits. That is especially true for the fifth seal which only
mentions the martyrdom of the saints. So, opening seals is revealing,
not causing these things, unless you’re going to say Jesus caused the
fifth seal.


 
So what am I supposed to do now, admit that I’m wrong?
 
Have fun and stay busy – Luke 19:13
 
-The Orange Mailman
Advertisements
This entry was posted in Eschatology. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to To “come” or to “come and see” that is the question

  1. Jim says:

    Orange-
     
    I checked this out and made an interesting discovery. I\’m still on the fence regarding TR vs. Critical Text, but here\’s what I found:
     
    TR does indeed say, "come and see" [erchou kai blepo]. Both "come" and "see" are present tense imperative active verbs. Here\’s a quote from my Word Study NT: "The present imperative occurs only in the active and middle voice in the New Testament. In the active voice, it may indicate a command to do something in the future which involves continuous or repeated action or, when it is neglected, a command to stop doing something" [emphasis added by me].
     
    The interesting part is John\’s response. "And I saw" (v. 2, et. al.). We would expect him to reply with appropriate form of the Greek word blepo (I\’m not sure what the form would be since I cannot conjugate Greek). We would also expect John to reply in the present tense since that is the tense in which the command was given. Neither of these are true. "Saw" is the Greek word eido. It is the aorist  indicative active form of the verb. To once again quote my Word Study NT: "The aorist indicative expresses action that is not continuous. It does not specify the relative time of the action to the time of speaking" [emphasis added by me]. Many scholars take aorist tense verbs to mean something to the equivalent of "once and for all."
     
    It would appear that John–if the command was indeed given to him–did not obey the command. He was commanded to see [blepo], but what he actually did was see [eido]. He was commanded to see in the present tense, but what he did was see in the aorist tense. My Greek dictionary goes into the differences between these two words [blepo vs. eido], but they are too detailed to post here (you\’re welcome to borrow it if you\’d like).
     
    I would also take issue with this statement from the other poster: "Giving a command would mean this heavenly being is the sourcecausing the the actions of the rider." This same arguement is used time and again to destroy God\’s sovreignty. We try to wrap our human minds around how God\’s will is always accomplished and how God is never responsible for sin. I don\’t buy that. To use a familiar example: Did God harden pharoah\’s heart (thus causing Him to sin)? Or did Pharoah harden his own heart (thus causing Pharoah to be responsible for his own sin)? The problem is that this is phrased as an "either/or" question when the answer to both is yes. I don\’t know how that works, but I\’ll trust God\’s Word before I trust my own logic. I would argue that opening seals is both "revealing" and "causing"–while God is not the author of the evil that will take place, it most certainly cannot happen outside of His plan, authority, and–ultimately–for His glory.
     
    Anyway–I haven\’t spent hours on this passage nor have I had the ability to follow your entire conversation, so I may be off base here. I just thought I\’d share what I found.
     
    See ya!
    Jim

  2. Darrin says:

    Not off base at all, Jim, you\’re following right along.  Basically, if the difference in verbs is true, we may have a later addition which was not originally intended making the minority text more reliable?  Is that what you\’re getting at?  The way I understand aorist is a completed act but no particular place in time; it must be related to the other verbs to determine if it\’s past, present, or future.  I don\’t follow Greek verbs very well, but here is what I\’m getting from your post:
     
    The living creature says "begin coming", then John saw an event happen "once and for all".  But if we follow TR, the living creature says "begin coming and begin seeing", then John saw an event happen "once and for all", then the connection between the command for John to do something and his following through is weak.  So if we follow the first idea, my thesis concerning the living creature giving the command to come being directed at summoning the horsemen actually has a few more teeth in it.  Hey, maybe I don\’t have to admit that I\’m wrong!
     
    I like your statement about sovereignty.  I almost didn\’t include that from the posters message, but I thought I would just do the whole thing and not edit his post at all.  Let the reader discern!

  3. Jim says:

    Darrin-
     
    I guess my observations led me to one of three conclusions (I\’m in an ambiguous mood today–haha):
     
    -1-The "and see" was added to the TR and not part of the original text.
    -2-The "come and see" is not referring to John but to someone (or something) else [right now, I would lean to this interpretation].
    -3-The way John saw [eido] is somehow an appropriate way to obey the command to see [blepo].
     
    I added the part about God\’s sovreignty because the poster in your message used that as a proof for his interpretation and I personally don\’t think that his proof works.
     
    See ya!
    Jim

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s