Regarding Revelations 22:19

[Todd Erickson]

The verse says:

"19And if anyone cancels or takes away from the statements of the book of this prophecy [these [a]predictions relating to Christ's kingdom and its speedy triumph, together with the consolations and admonitions or warnings pertaining to them], God will cancel and take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the city of holiness (purity and hallowedness), which are described and promised in this book."

So. Baptists use this as a capstone to the entire bible, as proof of why the KJV is the perfect version and nobody should ever add to it or change it. Doesn't appear to be quite what the text is saying.

Since much of what is written in Revelations is in a particular style (Jewish Apocalyptic) which makes taking anything in Revelations past the statements to the churches questionable if taken literally, what is John actually saying here? Is this a normal endpoint to a document like this? Is this just John being John? what's the deal?

[Benjamin Burch]

The verse says:

"19And if anyone cancels or takes away from the statements of the book of this prophecy [these [a]predictions relating to Christ's kingdom and its speedy triumph, together with the consolations and admonitions or warnings pertaining to them], God will cancel and take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the city of holiness (purity and hallowedness), which are described and promised in this book."

So. Baptists use this as a capstone to the entire bible, as proof of why the KJV is the perfect version and nobody should ever add to it or change it. Doesn't appear to be quite what the text is saying.

Since much of what is written in Revelations is in a particular style (Jewish Apocalyptic) which makes taking anything in Revelations past the statements to the churches questionable if taken literally, what is John actually saying here? Is this a normal endpoint to a document like this? Is this just John being John? what's the deal?

I may be WAY off on this matter. However, i have always viewed this as calling a curse on anyone who would attempt to take editorial freedom with this document. It wasn't uncommon at the time for scribes to edit and change things as they copied the manuscript. Sounds to me to be a curse against that, in hopes of dissuading any editor from doing such with this document.

I have no research to back that up though. i simply have not really read much about Revelation. That's all speculation from the hip.

[Jon Twitchell]

I'm not prepared to respond to your question itself without correcting your statement about Baptists and the KJV. While there maybe SOME Baptists who do this, there are also SOME Nazarenes who do this (A group in Northern Ireland comes to mind). I know many Baptists who don't do this. Anyone who does fails to recognize that the Book of The Revelation existed before there was a canon (or a KJV), hence the verse can't really refer to a canon of books that doesn't yet exist.

Also, while some may not view it as a big deal, it's worth nothing that the name of the book is "Revelation," not "Revelations." You might also call it "The Revelation of Jesus Christ." The point is that it contains a single revelation, not several.

And to answer your question, I've heard that a statement like that is fairly common among that genre of literature. I haven't studied that any further, so it's just hearsay. Hopefully someone else can chime in.

[David Graham]

I don't know if the Baptists see it, but it certainly doesn't teach "unconditional eternal security"!

However, with regard to the text in context, it is probably referring to the "Revelation" itself, and here I agree with Ben's comments. In saying that, with all of the symbolic language, what would you change? To me the prophecy is shrouded in mystery, and after the first three chapters, I really have no idea about even the sequence of events, let alone what they might mean. However, God will prevail in the end, and for a church that endured extreme persecution, that must have been a little comforting.

Blessings,
Dave

[Steven Martinez]

Also, while some may not view it as a big deal, it's worth nothing that the name of the book is "Revelation," not "Revelations." You might also call it "The Revelation of Jesus Christ." The point is that it contains a single revelation, not several.

Thanks Jon. It bugs me when people add the "s." Of course those who do tend to be dispensationalists and the problem goes from there.

[Jim Chabot]

Thanks Jon. It bugs me when people add the "s." Of course those who do tend to be dispensationalists and the problem goes from there.

Thanks Steve! I get touchy about adding the "s" as well, don't really like the "s" on my fruit either. The dispensationalist connection is just too funny, I need to remember that one. I have a good friend who is a dyed in the wool KJV only, independent, baptist, dispensationalist. And he always adds the "s".

[Todd Erickson]

I have a good friend who is a died in the wool

what a strange way to die!

[Greg Farra]

Of course, there a zillion different kinds of Baptists, so it may not be charitable to lump them all together. Having said that, those dispensational kjv-only ones are still our brothers and sisters in Christ.

[David Graham]

Of course, there a zillion different kinds of Baptists, so it may not be charitable to lump them all together. Having said that, those dispensational kjv-only ones are still our brothers and sisters in Christ.

I agree Greg, however, some would not say that about us...... or me at least! (Being in the "apostate" UCA)

Blessings,
Dave

[Greg Farra]

Right you are, David. But I don't worry too much about that anymore. We both know who holds us in his hands. It's sad to see some of the legalism. Yet I've known some very loving Fundamentalists.

[Jim Chabot]

I agree Greg, however, some would not say that about us...... or me at least! (Being in the "apostate" UCA)

Blessings,
Dave

My friend tells me that we are brothers, but we cannot worship together because of doctrine. Although it is ok for me to attend his church. He's a real good guy even though he has some funny ideas!

[Greg Farra]

My brother is in a Pauline church. They believe that in this dispensation of grace, only Paul's writings are for today's believers. They really miss out on a lot of Christ's teachings. How sad. I've preached three times this year, all out of the Gospel of John. Last Sunday was on Peter being restored by Jesus. I'm sorry he will never hear that being taught.

Jim, I'm sorry your friend won't worship with you. Just keep being a good example of Christian love, that will eventually wear him down!!!

[Benjamin Burch]

My brother is in a Pauline church. They believe that in this dispensation of grace, only Paul's writings are for today's believers. They really miss out on a lot of Christ's teachings. How sad. I've preached three times this year, all out of the Gospel of John. Last Sunday was on Peter being restored by Jesus. I'm sorry he will never hear that being taught.

Jim, I'm sorry your friend won't worship with you. Just keep being a good example of Christian love, that will eventually wear him down!!!

I think there's a word for that....

Marcionite?

[Greg Farra]

They're also into the 'End Times', so I think that they are Revelation fanatics as well. Thanks for the Marcion refence. I'll look it up to refresh my memory.

[Jon Twitchell]

I alluded to this earlier, but when I was in college, our Madrigal Singers group (it's now called the Chamber Singers), took a j-term tour of the British Isles. One of our stops was a Nazarene KJV-only church. But as fundamentalists go, at least they were more consistent then some--the women had to wear hair coverings and remain silent. They even had baskets of doilies at the door for those who didn't have their own hair-covering.

[Greg Farra]

From a quick look at Marconianism, I don't think my brother's church is in that camp. They accept all of the Bible as canon, along with some other differences. They believe that the God of the OT is the same God of the NT. One of their interesting beliefs is that the church did not start in Acts 2 but in Acts 9 with Paul's conversion,as he was the Apostle to the Gentiles. They hold Paul's writings to be for the 'age of grace' dispensation, with Hebrews- Jude to be for the people who are left behind after the rapture. They also believe Revelation to be a road map for all of this end time stuff, so it gets a lot of attention as well. They seem to have everything figured out, at least in their own minds.
You can check out their curious beliefs at http://www.columbusbiblechurch.org/i...d=47&Itemid=53

[Greg Farra]

I alluded to this earlier, but when I was in college, our Madrigal Singers group (it's now called the Chamber Singers), took a j-term tour of the British Isles. One of our stops was a Nazarene KJV-only church. But as fundamentalists go, at least they were more consistent then some--the women had to wear hair coverings and remain silent. They even had baskets of doilies at the door for those who didn't have their own hair-covering.

Jon, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that.

[Jim Chabot]

My brother is in a Pauline church. They believe that in this dispensation of grace, only Paul's writings are for today's believers. They really miss out on a lot of Christ's teachings. How sad. I've preached three times this year, all out of the Gospel of John. Last Sunday was on Peter being restored by Jesus. I'm sorry he will never hear that being taught.

Jim, I'm sorry your friend won't worship with you. Just keep being a good example of Christian love, that will eventually wear him down!!!

Oh it doesn't bother me at all, and yes love will prevail. I know that he loves the Lord, and I know that we will worship together in glory! "When we all get to heaven, what a day of rejoicing that will be!"

I think that his church drinks from a similar well as your brother's church does. What I find surprising is that most of these churches purport to believe the bible entirely and innerantly, yet somehow that always manage to eave part out or add something in. Go figure!

http://www.wtbc.net/index.html

[Randy Wise]

To me the context of rev 22:19 is rev 22:10, that is the book has not been sealed up and is open and available for all to read as written.
Randy

10Then he told me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book

[David Troxler]

Of course, there a zillion different kinds of Baptists, so it may not be charitable to lump them all together. Having said that, those dispensational kjv-only ones are still our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Wow, there are more different kinds of Baptists then there are people populating the earth. No wonder they have such influence!

[Billie Goodson]

Wow, there are more different kinds of Baptists then there are people populating the earth. No wonder they have such influence!

Some of them are theologically conflicted so they get credit for more than one instance.

[Greg Farra]

Wow, there are more different kinds of Baptists then there are people populating the earth. No wonder they have such influence!

The late Walter Martin once said that the Baptists were increasing at such a rate that in a few years there'd be more Southern Baptists than people!

[George Wallace]

I agree Greg, however, some would not say that about us...... or me at least! (Being in the "apostate" UCA)

Blessings,
Dave

Not Apostate Dave,
Just Presbyterian...NO WAIT....Methodist...NO WAIT....Congregational..... Ecuminically confusing, maybe. But definately not Apostate!

[George Wallace]

I think there's a word for that....

Marcionite?

Didn't he keep portions of Luke too?

[Shea Zellweger]

short answer- it was written to apply only to the Revelation
Longer answer- it depends how much you feel Scripture is inter-related. If you're comfortable using the Hebrews 11:1 definition of faith when referencing Paul's statements about how "the righteous will live by faith," (just one example) then you treat the Bible like one cohesive book, and Rev. 22:19 for you probably applies to the whole thing. If, on the other hand, you are only comfortable with internal referencing, or at the most only going outside of a book to another book written by the same author for clarification, then Rev. 22 can only apply to a maximum of 5 of the 66 books of the Bible.

[George Wallace]

Okay this look like the spot and time for this:

As a visiting Baptist is worshiping with a Traditional Presbyterian congregation he becomes boisterous during the sermon hollering:

“Amen!”

“Preach it Brother!”

You got that Right!

“Amen! Halleluiah!!”

“Glory to God!”

Finally, clearly agitated, one of the Presbyterian Elders speaks to him and says:

“Sir, you might want to tone it down a bit.”

To which the Baptist Brother replies:

“I can’t I got the Joy of the Lord in me!”

The disgruntled Presbyterian Elder retorts:

“Well, you did get that HERE!”

George

[Dennis Bratcher]

The verse says:

"19And if anyone cancels or takes away from the statements of the book of this prophecy [these [a]predictions relating to Christ's kingdom and its speedy triumph, together with the consolations and admonitions or warnings pertaining to them], God will cancel and take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the city of holiness (purity and hallowedness), which are described and promised in this book."

So. Baptists use this as a capstone to the entire bible, as proof of why the KJV is the perfect version and nobody should ever add to it or change it. Doesn't appear to be quite what the text is saying.

Since much of what is written in Revelations is in a particular style (Jewish Apocalyptic) which makes taking anything in Revelations past the statements to the churches questionable if taken literally, what is John actually saying here? Is this a normal endpoint to a document like this? Is this just John being John? what's the deal?

Most commentaries that deal with literary genre point out that such a closing is common in sacred texts and treaties, and dates at least to Egyptian writings around 2200 BC. It is called Die Sicherungsformel, "protection formula," although David Aune in Word commentary prefers "integrity formula." It served to verify the accuracy of the writing and often warned of curses against those who would alter the text, which would be especially important in treaties and religious texts.

Take not away then a word from the ancient teaching, and add not one; put not one thing in place of another; beware of uncovering the rebellious ideas which arise in you; but teach according to the words of the wise. [The Instruction of Ptah-Hotep, Egypt, c. 2200 BC from Ancient History Sourcebook; there is debate about the exact translation]

A similar formula occurs in the covenant passages of Deuteronomy, a covenant that functions both as a treaty and a religious text.

Deut 4:2 You must neither add anything to what I command you nor take away anything from it, but keep the commandments of the LORD your God with which I am charging you.

Deut 12:32 You must diligently observe everything that I command you; do not add to it or take anything from it.

It is used in Old Testament wisdom literature, reinforcing the reliability of wisdom instruction.

Prov 30:5 Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 30:6 Do not add to his words, or else he will rebuke you, and you will be found a liar.

Sirach 42:18 He searches out the abyss, and the hearts of men, and considers their crafty devices. For the Most High knows all that may be known, and he looks into the signs of the age. 42:19 He declares what has been and what is to be, and he reveals the tracks of hidden things. 42:20 No thought escapes him, and not one word is hidden from him. 42:21 He has ordained the splendors of his wisdom, and he is from everlasting and to everlasting. Nothing can be added or taken away, and he needs no one to be his counselor.

Iin the second century BC Letter of Aristeas, a Coptic document by Egyptian Jews, it affirms the accuracy of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament (Septuagint).

310 After the books had been read, the priests and the elders of the translators and the Jewish community and the leaders of the people stood up and said, that since so excellent and sacred and accurate a translation had been made, it was only right that it should remain as it was and no 311 alteration should be made in it. And when the whole company expressed their approval, they bade them pronounce a curse in accordance with their custom upon any one who should make any alteration either by adding anything or changing in any way whatever any of the words which had been written or making any omission. This was a very wise precaution to ensure that the book might be preserved for all the future time unchanged. [Letter of Aristeas, 310-311, Wesley Center Online

This formula continued in use past the New Testament era.

And whosoever shall take anything away from this narrative, or add anything to it, commits sin. [History of Joseph the Carpenter, 30, a Coptic (Egyptian) apocryphal Gospel from the 5th century AD, Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Bottom line: This formula is a very ancient, widespread, and quite common way of affirming the reliability of a written document and attempting to protect its integrity. In some ways, it serves a very similar purpose as John 21:24.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Bill Morrison]

I wanted to thank Dr. Bratcher for this explanation, but there is no THANK YOU button at the bottom. Is it my computer? Am I going blind? Should I even be troubled?
THANK YOU anyway to Dennis B.

BILL

[Susan Unger]

My brother is in a Pauline church. They believe that in this dispensation of grace, only Paul's writings are for today's believers. They really miss out on a lot of Christ's teachings. How sad. I've preached three times this year, all out of the Gospel of John. Last Sunday was on Peter being restored by Jesus. I'm sorry he will never hear that being taught.

Jim, I'm sorry your friend won't worship with you. Just keep being a good example of Christian love, that will eventually wear him down!!!

And here I thought I was familar with all the 'different' types of churches out there in the USA. This is a totally new one to me. Learn something new everyday I guess.

[Susan Unger]

I alluded to this earlier, but when I was in college, our Madrigal Singers group (it's now called the Chamber Singers), took a j-term tour of the British Isles. One of our stops was a Nazarene KJV-only church. But as fundamentalists go, at least they were more consistent then some--the women had to wear hair coverings and remain silent. They even had baskets of doilies at the door for those who didn't have their own hair-covering.

If Naznet had a barf button, I'd be using it right now...vehemently.

[Larry Parsons]

My brother is in a Pauline church. They believe that in this dispensation of grace, only Paul's writings are for today's believers. They really miss out on a lot of Christ's teachings. How sad. I've preached three times this year, all out of the Gospel of John. Last Sunday was on Peter being restored by Jesus. I'm sorry he will never hear that being taught.

Jim, I'm sorry your friend won't worship with you. Just keep being a good example of Christian love, that will eventually wear him down!!!

Greg, Is this Pauline church of Christ? I know this doesn't have anything to do what you guys are talking about. I had neighbor who belong to the PCoC.
Our church had a revival would you believe our PCoC neighbor keep our song evangelist the for the week our neighbor never did attend any of our service but he went out his to made our revival a success.
Larrry

[Greg Farra]

Greg, Is this Pauline church of Christ? I know this doesn't have anything to do what you guys are talking about. I had neighbor who belong to the PCoC.
Our church had a revival would you believe our PCoC neighbor keep our song evangelist the for the week our neighbor never did attend any of our service but he went out his to made our revival a success.
Larrry

Larry, it is Columbus Bible Church. They accept the whole Bible, but view some of it for the past 'dispensation', some for now, and some for the future. Genesis-John would be for the people before Christ, Acts is sort of a transition from law to grace, and the rest is for the people after the church is 'raptured'. This is a bit of an oversimplification, but it's the basic line of thought in his church.

[Larry Parsons]

The book of Revelation was written somewhere between 64 and 67 AD and John was writing to t real churchs that was located in Asia Right at the begining of the book there is a blesssing for those tribulation saints who read and keep the things that are written in the book that they have recieve. Now at the end of the book John is warning the leaders of those 7 churchs not to change any thing that was written in the letter. If they did they would no longer be a part of the holy city which is the church. This just a though I could change my mind on this as I contimue to study th book of Revlationn
Thanks
Larry P.

[David Graham]

Larry, thanks for your post. I disagree with you about the date of the authorship of the Revelation, but I agree with your assertion that its audience was those to whom John wrote among the 7 churches of Asia Minor. I also appreciate your openness to the Lord to teach new things about this difficult book; and I would concurr with that as well.

Blessings,
Dave