Revelation 22:18, 19

[OObi]

18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

Okay, what do you guys think about these verses? If you add/subtract to the bible then your name is blotted out of the book of life... that's a bad thing. Does that mean that adding or subtracting from God's word means certain hell? You tell me.

 

[hannabl]

Those verses does not concern the entire Bible, only the book of Revelation.

And, no, removing or adding parts to the Rev is not a good idea...

 

[Van]

The way I understand the passage is that John is closing the book, the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Those like myself, with my flawed understanding of the book are not adding to the book or subtracting from the book, we are misunderstanding the book. To add would be to claim to be inspired and add scripture, such as the book of Islam or the book of Mormon. To take away would be to say that some or all of the book of Revelation is not inspired, and simply the invention of man.

In summary, the effect of the passage is to say God has no plan to add to the bible, because the warning can be applied to any of the inspired writings.

The effect of the warning is to say to each of us, God will punish those who undercut the authority of the inspired word, whether it be loss of rewards for those who are saved, or additional punishment for additional sin of the unsaved. I do not think the unsaved have any part of the tree of life.

 

[hannabl]

The way I understand the passage is that John is closing the book, the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Those like myself, with my flawed understanding of the book are not adding to the book or subtracting from the book, we are misunderstanding the book.

Lovely put!

To add would be to claim to be inspired and add scripture, such as the book of Islam or the book of Mormon. To take away would be to say that some or all of the book of Revelation is not inspired, and simply the invention of man.

True

In summary, the effect of the passage is to say God has no plan to add to the bible, because the warning can be applied to any of the inspired writings.

Well... I can't agree fully with you here. There are different amounts of books in the Bible depending which denomination you come from (Protestant 66, Catholic 73, Orthodox 73-75) but i don't think the warning applies to this.

The NT, perhaps. Since we all share the same amount of books in the NT, but still... This was decided canon perhaps 200, 300 or 400 AD (my knowledge about the history of the scripture needs improving, I know).

But I think it's safe to say that:
1) We should not add or remove anything from the bible (the history about how the different denominations have different canons shall perhaps in this case remain just that, history)

2)The book of Revelation has been given a special warning by God, so we should absolutely NOT add or remove anything from this book

The effect of the warning is to say to each of us, God will punish those who undercut the authority of the inspired word, whether it be loss of rewards for those who are saved, or additional punishment for additional sin of the unsaved. I do not think the unsaved have any part of the tree of life.

I will not ponder waht may happen if you break this rules... Isay let's leave the judging to God

(There is a truth of course, about what will happen, but I'm not the best person to try to figure that one out right now)

 

[Van]

Hi Hannabl, the idea is whatever was the body of inspired writings that existed when John wrote these verses, no more will be added.

We can debate if John had only the books in our modern bible in view, or also some of what we view as uninspired, written before John closed the book, but my understanding of the meaning of the verses is stuff written later is out.

 

[hannabl]

Hi Hannabl, the idea is whatever was the body of inspired writings that existed when John wrote these verses, no more will be added.

We can debate if John had only the books in our modern bible in view, or also some of what we view as uninspired, written before John closed the book, but my understanding of the meaning of the verses is stuff written later is out.

If you feel that the verses refer to the set of books regarded canon at the time John closed the book of Rev, do you think that no books should be taken away that was there at that time.... as well as no books should be added.

Since the warning talks about both removing and adding, I can't just regard the adding but not the removing... And since the removing leads to the different sets of canon we have today, I don't find the interpretion of the verses to be about the entire Bible to appealing. (I might be rambling.. )

But naturally, the Truth will remain the Truth whether it's appealing or not.

But I stick to my theory about the verses only refering to the one book of Revelation. Though the Revelatin is teh last revelation binding for all Christians.

But the penalty for adding to the Bible is not, I believe, the same as for adding to the Rev.

(Once again, I'm sorry about the not-so-well-structured-post, I'm just tired... and stuffed with chocolate - preparing for tomorrow when the lent starts.)

/Hanna

 

[Van]

Hi Hannabl, I think you have presented your thoughtful position well. We agree to a degree.

 

[OObi]

Okay, if your name is taken out of the book of life, then you don't go to heaven. That is my first assumption, so correct it please, if I'm wrong.

If your name is taken out of the book of life, then are there such sins as unforgivable sins? Before I ask more questions I would like this one answered first.

Shalom, OObi

 

[Van]

First lets back up. In the OT, a "book of life" is mentioned and names a blotted out. So either loss of physical life, or loss of an eternal relationship with God is in view under the Old Covenant. But this has no application for those covered by the New Covenant in the blood of Christ.

Rev 22:18 does not mention any book. Revelation 22:19 has the issue of two variant versions. In my bible, the NASB version, the verse says loss of our portion of the tree of life, so loss of rewards once in heaven is in view. In summary, only in a variant version of Rev 22:19 is a "book of life" mentioned. The Critical Text reads "tree of life.

Bottom line there is little or no support for the idea of names being removed from the Lamb's book of life in Revelation 22:18-19.

Next lets turn to the idea of an unforgivable sin. Yes, there is an unforgivable sin. If you reject our Lord Jesus Christ, your sin will not be forgiven. If you place your complete trust in Christ, not only will all your sins be forgiven, they will be remembered no more forever. People hold a range of views on this issue, but the one I believe is true, I presented above.

Third, lets deal with the idea of names being blotted out of the Lamb's book of life. My view is that either your name is not entered, or when it is entered it will not be blotted out. Here are the verses that mention the "book of life" in the NT: Phil.4:3; Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; and 21:27.

Phil. 4:3 demonstrates that existent born again believers in Christ have had their names entered. The names could have been entered either at the start of their life in Christ, or anytime before that, this verse does not say.

Revelation 3:5 is a promise to not erase a name entered in the book of life. So if the name is entered at the start of the person's Christian life, then the issue becomes is the name entered after the person overcomes or before. The way I read it, a person overcomes his or her reservations concerning the gospel of Christ, and places his or her complete faith in Christ, then God places them in Christ, clothing them in white garments, washed white as snow by the blood of the lamb, and then Jesus says, I will not erase your name, indicating permanent salvation, versus the loseable relationship of the Old Covenant.

In Revelation 13:8 and 17:8 no names are blotted out, rather folks whose name is not in the book are punished.

In Revelation 20:12, the book is mentioned but this verse does not address entering or removing or not finding names in the book.

In Revelation 20:15, everyone whose name is not found written in the book is tossed in the Lake of Fire.

In Revelation 21:27, everyone whose names are written in the book enter heaven.

Hebrews 12:23 indicates that the church of the first born is enrolled in heaven, possibly being a reference to when our names are entered in the Lamb's book of life, i.e when we are placed in Christ and join the church of the firstborn.

I hope some of this helps,

 

[OObi]

First lets back up. In the OT, a "book of life" is mentioned and names a blotted out. So either loss of physical life, or loss of an eternal relationship with God is in view under the Old Covenant. But this has no application for those covered by the New Covenant in the blood of Christ.

Can you give a verse reference and an explanation of why this is no longer in application?

Rev 22:18 does not mention any book. Revelation 22:19 has the issue of two variant versions. In my bible, the NASB version, the verse says loss of our portion of the tree of life, so loss of rewards once in heaven is in view. In summary, only in a variant version of Rev 22:19 is a "book of life" mentioned. The Critical Text reads "tree of life.

I got this translation off of blueletterbible.org and it said the word used is biblos {bib'-los} and it means literally book, or scroll. It seems as if the most accurate translation is Book of Life.

Phil. 4:3 demonstrates that existent born again believers in Christ have had their names entered. The names could have been entered either at the start of their life in Christ, or anytime before that, this verse does not say.

This verse does not say anything about names being entered. The was it speaks of it, it seems as if the names have always been there.

And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and [with] other my fellowlabourers, whose names [are] in the book of life.

Revelation 3:5 is a promise to not erase a name entered in the book of life. So if the name is entered at the start of the person's Christian life, then the issue becomes is the name entered after the person overcomes or before.

Again, the verse doesn't point to names being entered in, but it looks as if the names have always been there. Also, when it says he that overcomes won't have his name blotted out, it doesn't have a reference to time. Does it mean he that overcomes as in the sense of becoming a Christian? Or rather, overcoming in the sense that you endured with your name still in the Book?

He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Again, if your name can be blotted out, is adding to the book of revelation an unforgivable sin?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

To presume to add to or take away from God's Word is as sin worthy of the lake of fire. Of course, like all other sins, it can be forgiven.

 

[TruthMiner]

If you feel that the verses refer to the set of books regarded canon at the time John closed the book of Rev, do you think that no books should be taken away that was there at that time.... as well as no books should be added.

Since the warning talks about both removing and adding, I can't just regard the adding but not the removing... And since the removing leads to the different sets of canon we have today, I don't find the interpretion of the verses to be about the entire Bible to appealing. (I might be rambling.. )

But naturally, the Truth will remain the Truth whether it's appealing or not.

But I stick to my theory about the verses only refering to the one book of Revelation. Though the Revelatin is teh last revelation binding for all Christians.

But the penalty for adding to the Bible is not, I believe, the same as for adding to the Rev.

(Once again, I'm sorry about the not-so-well-structured-post, I'm just tired... and stuffed with chocolate - preparing for tomorrow when the lent starts.)

/Hanna

Quite correct.

 

[relspace]

Quite correct.

Ok, I am going to take a real punge and get everbody on my case. I even checked the Nicean creed to see if I was allowed to say this, but I guess I don't really believe in a literal book of life, or if there is such a thing I cannot see what significance it could have. It seems to me that salvation is all about whether you have a living relationship with Christ. A name in a book sounds too much like a ticket to heaven, to me. Rev. Moon's church was practically selling such tickets to its members a while back, so forgive me if I am a little disapproving of that idea.

Anyway, I would interpret the passage to mean that God would make no effort to bring a person, who attempts to deceive others by altering scripture, to accept Christ. And without such an effort made by God, are we not without hope? For those who are already in the hands of God, I am sure they can completely trust in Him to keep them from such an error. So I guess I am, at least, "Calvinist enough" (and I am not very Calvinist at all) to believe that this is a sin that will never need to be forgiven.

 

[Van]

The idea of the Lamb's book of life is to give us confidence, once our name is entered, Jesus will not blot it out. So we can risk everything in this life, our place with Christ is secure and eternal.

God desires all men to be saved, so that fact that the person is attacking God's word would not alter that desire. God says repent, the kingdom of Heaven is at hand. But the teaching is sound, we should do our best to stick with scripture, and not take away by saying this verse can be dismissed because God is spirit, or add to scripture by saying God knows all things means more than the contextual idea of God knowing all things about those He deals with.

 

[relspace]

God desires all men to be saved, so that fact that the person is attacking God's word would not alter that desire. God says repent, the kingdom of Heaven is at hand. But the teaching is sound, we should do our best to stick with scripture, and not take away by saying this verse can be dismissed because God is spirit, or add to scripture by saying God knows all things means more than the contextual idea of God knowing all things about those He deals with.

Ah hah! Here is a case where I catch you out being more bold than I in taking scripture at less than its word. This is not a criticism on my part only teasing amusement. I am not a fundamentalist and I don't believe there is any such thing as a literal interpretation. (Instead I believe that the teachings of Paul are the key to scripture, which is what I think most of Christianity does whether they admit it or not.)