Bro. Chooch on the 24 Elders

Gary,

I watched your previous video on the elders and post trib...

You used your Literal Translation for Rev 5:9 and told listeners to highlight or underline the "us" in that verse. But almost all manuscripts agree, there should be no "us" in that verse (Rev 5:9). I will quote Biblehub's interlinear below:

The object is clarified in "out of every tribe, tongue, people and nation". They are the ones who were purchased by Christ blood; not those who sing.

Now, I know we have spoken about this on other threads. But I am wondering,  do you accept usage of  the Majority Text in this regard only? Or do you recognize that most transcripts today, omit it in favor of the Critical Text? 

Why do most translations then omit "us" from their text and the community has found in 5:9, that the CT is typified a grade "A" rating making its authority/acceptance in this matter as correct?
Of 29 current translations, only 11 use "us". 18 do not use it.

Also, if this is truly the case, and "us" is meant, how do you understand the MT and Nestle-Aland/UBS both agree that Revelation 5:10 read "them" and "they" rather than  "us" and "we"?
If the Elders said they are redeemed, why would they then turn around and say someone else is to be made priests and kings and reign on earth? 

PS. Thanks for the quick reply.

Good question.  I'm not sure what those specific 18 are, but I imagine the reason is that none of them are based on M or TR.  They are likely all based on the CT, which as you've pointed out, omits "us."  Regarding the second question, I recall addressing this one a few times before on here.  I agree with "them" in v. 10.  MS evidence is strong.  There is overwhelming evidence for "us" in v. 9 and "them" in v. 10.  That's just the text we have and I believe that as people of the Book (Sola Scriptura) we have to start first and foremost with the text before we delve in the contextual/interpretive questions.  If the text has "us" in v. 9 and "them" in v. 10, then I don't believe the problem is with the text, but with whatever our preconceptions are that see an issue with that.

In any case, funny thing is that the question about "us" came up twice yesterday.  Reader "Sam" asked about it, as well, so I'm going to paste my responses here.

First, regarding why it's "us" in v. 9 and "them" in v. 10:


Second, summarizing the evidence for "us":


Blessings!

Just want to chime in on this, in my opinion "us" or no "us" really is a moot point when trying to identify who exactly the elders are




Hebrews, in the context of this passage, is talking all about the inaugeration of the New Covenant era, how the earthly tabernacle and preisthood is patterned after that which is in heaven, how under the Old Covenant the animal sacrifices cleansed the earthly copies of the heavenly. 

It is pretty clear that John is caught up into the heavenly Tabernacle in Revelation 4, you have to be blind not to see that.  You have the throne of God, the 7 spirits of fire (Lampstand) the altar of insence, the crystal sea, the cherubim. It is most certainly the heavenly holy place. We see in hebrews 9 that Jesus not only cleansed the nations through His sacrifice, but also cleansed the heavenly things themselves.  So those elders, who are in that heavenly tabernacle, whether they be the "church" as some believe, or some heavenly high council are cleansed by the blood of Christ either way, by the redemption of things on earth by Christ or by the redemption of the heavenly things.  

I tend to believe what is described in Hebrews here is precisely what John is witnessing as the Lamb enters as if slain into the heavenly tabernacle in Revelation 4- he is witnessing the inaugeration of the New Covenant era, hence the "New Song". People are so intent on identifying the elders, that they miss the forest for the trees. The New Song is the change here, the very important bit that gets glossed over.



One of the Elders explains to John what he is seeing- Jesus, the Lamb that was standing as if "slain", had overcome, so He can now open the sealed scroll. The living creatures and the elders sing a new song, whether there is an us in there or not, the main point is that this is the song of the New Covenant, that changed the spiritual paradigm on earth and in heaven forever.  He was slain to purchase mankind with His blood, enabling believers to become the kingdom of God, to become priests to God, to reign on the earth.



Christ won't appear "as if slain" some time in the future again, but will appear for salvation without reference to sin. He died once for all, to save us from the consequence of sin, the next time He appears it will be to physically save us from the planet, to gather us into eternity. We are saved from sin, and then saved to recieve the eternal inheritance. 



If what John sees in Revelation 4 is the inaugeration of the New Covenant, which I strongly adhere to, then it is impossible that the elders are any kind of representaion of the church. Believers cannot enter into the heavenly tabernacle until Christ the head enters as if slain first. 

venge and rt , I know we've gone circles on this several times.  Each of us has a strong opinion and is unlikely at this point to be persuaded otherwise, which is ok with me.  I bring that up just to say that I probably won't engage much more on this topic since what has been said has been said, but I will say there are answers to many of the issues brought up.  For instance:


1. venge - "That is assuming it is an antiphon, which seems out of place and doesnt conform with the scripture.  That is, both groups sing the song together.  Taking a plain reading of the text, there is no reason to suggest one sings one verse, stops and then another group continues (though I understand that is your view because it fits with your theory, and without it, that theory would not make sense.  Thereby, it is an necessity)."

Actually a plain reading of the text doesn't go either way.  The text doesn't explicitly say it's an antiphon, and it doesn't say it isn't.  This isn't evidence for or against.  I've never said that the antiphon view is a necessity.  That's a straw man.  In fact I offered other possibilities.  What I've said is that this being an antiphon makes the most sense to me of what the text does plainly state, which is us in v. 9.

We have us in v. 9 and probably* "them" and "they" in v. 10.  That's a plain reading of the text, conjecture and interpretation aside.  As to why the transition, that's up for debate.  There's nothing inherently "out of place" with an antiphon.  They are a normal feature of corporate/congregational worship.  I'm sure Heaven will be full of beautiful choruses of people singing together, and, in terms of the text, we see two groups singing, so I think it fits naturally.

*I say probably since the TR maintains "us" in both verses.


2. rt - "Just want to chime in on this, in my opinion 'us' or no 'us' really is a moot point when trying to identify who exactly the elders are"

I don't believe it's a moot point since the elders singing aren't simply saying "You've redeemed us."  They're singing, "You've redeemed us from every tribe and language and people and nation."  Angels and heavenly beings weren't redeemed from the earth, from every tribe, language, people, and nation.  Furthermore, presbuteros is a human term throughout the LXX and Greek NT and the elders have the things that were quite literally just promised to the churches in the immediately preceding passage.  Even more—they are distinguished from angels in several passages of Revelation (e.g., Rev. 5:11; 7:11).


3. rt - Generally responding to the retrospective view of "a Lamb as if slain."

As I mentioned at the outset, I understand that each of us has our views and are sticking to them.  I won't persuade you, but the objections to the standard dispensational view do have an answer and have been thought through.  It isn't an issue of "missing the forest for the trees," but I simply think the trees are growing in a different forest.

First, John had his experience decades after Jesus ascended.   Many view Revelation as simply "a vision" (a visual/auditory experience that God gave Him and which He subsequently jotted down; not saying this is your view), but Revelation doesn't actually define itself that way.  To the contrary, it seems to have been a real experience/transportation (e.g., Rev. 1:10; 4:1–2) akin to Paul being caught up "in the body or out of the body" into Paradise (2 Cor. 12:2–4) or Philip being caught up by the Spirit (Acts 8:39–40).  John experienced and viewed these things many decades after Jesus ascended.

Second, Revelation's structure itself makes the retrospective view of chs. 4–5 (and 6 for that matter) difficult to defend (e.g., Rev. 1:19).  But the issue you will ultimately run into from the text is the timing the text itself gives.   I can't get around this very black-and-white clarification of the timing of the Throne Room scene that God Himself proclaims to John in the first two verses of ch. 4:


The Throne Room scene chronologically occurs after the letters (chs. 2–3), and ch. 1, for that matter.

Third, the issue of Jesus' appearance is an argument from silence, imho, since we have clearer Scripture on the timing (e.g., Rev. 1:19; 4:1; 5:9).   Jesus can appear like a Lamb in the future if He wants to.   Rev. 5:6 even qualifies "having been slain" with ὡς, which is a comparative adverb.  It's not that He is still slain in Heaven, but appears "as if" slain.  After all, Jesus didn't ascend to Heaven until after the resurrection.  He was never slain or still slain in Heaven, but resurrected and alive.

Furthermore, He already appeared in an immortal, resurrected body before the ascension and His appearance was a man, not a lamb.  In form, but not glory, like what John saw in Rev. 1 or what Stephen saw in Acts 7.  The once-for-all sacrifice occurred on the Cross alone and Jesus' appearance in Rev. 5 as a Lamb "as if" slain is either a symbol or an appearance that Jesus chooses to take in the future for benefit to the saints.

Jesus will also appear as if slain in the future according to Rev. 1:7 and Zech. 12.

We can also conclusively anchor Jesus' appearance as the heavenly Lamb to the future based on many passages in Revelation: Rev. 4:1; 6:16; 7:9–17; 14:1–10; 17:14; 19:7–9; 21:9.  Yes, Jesus second advent isn't with reference to sin since sin was squarely dealt with on the Cross, but if He so chooses to appear as if slain for His saints, that is His sovereign choice, and, in fact, seems to be exactly what He will choose to do.


Maranatha!