Revelation 5, The Twenty-Four Elders, and The Rapture

Dr. John Niemela

Message of Life Ministries (California)www.mol316.com

Introduction

Revelation 5 continues the chapter 4's scene of the heavenlycourt. Despite the heavenly setting, the passage starts with a scene of despair(vv 1-4). Revelation 5:1 mentions an unusual scroll, an opisthograph (a scrollwritten on both sides).[1]John perceives the futility of the search for someone worthy to take and tobreak its seals. He weeps, until learning that Jesus is worthy.

At the point that John takes heart at Christbeing found worthy, a huge heavenly choir convenes and sings a new song toJesus Christ: the One who is worthy. Despair suddenly is transformed intouniversal exaltation.

This passage gives some important clues regardingthe timing of the Rapture in relation to other important eschatological events.Some clues are prominent; others are not. We will:

1. name thegroups comprising the choir,

2. show the antiphonal (give-and-take) arrangement for singing groups,

3. determine ifthe ones who sang verse 9 also sang verse 10,

4. considertextual issues in verse 9-10,

5. apply theantiphonal singing arrangement to the words of the song,

6. drawconclusions regarding the chronology of eschatological events.

The Groups Comprising the Choir

There are four groups: All of them sing verse13b, but only selected groups sing musical selections prior to verse 13 (verses9b, 10, and 12b.

1. The four livingcreatures (cherubs?). Revelation 5:8-12 mentions them.

2. The twenty-fourelders. Cf. 5:8-12.

3. Many angels. Cf.5:11-12.

4. Every creatureeverywhere. Mentioned only in verse 13.

The Antiphonal (Give-and-Take) Arrangement

Not all musical arrangements involve everyonesinging exactly the same words as every other singer. A common antiphonalarrangement involves men singing one part with the women singing a response.The Song of Moses in Exodus 15 had such an arrangement. Notice that Miriam sangan antiphonal response (bottom of page):

¹ Then Mosesand the children of Israel sang this song to the LORD, and spoke, saying:

I will sing to the LORD, For Hehas triumphed gloriously! The horse and its rider He has thrown into the sea! ²The LORD is my strength and song, And He has become my salvation; He is my God,and I will praise Him; My father's God, and I will exalt Him. ³ TheLORD is a man of war; The LORD is His name. ⁴ Pharaoh's chariots andhis army He has cast into the sea; His chosen captains also are drowned in theRed Sea. ⁵ The depths have covered them; They sank to the bottomlike a stone. ⁶ Your right hand, O LORD, has become glorious inpower; Your right hand, O LORD, has dashed the enemy in pieces. ⁷And in the greatness of Your excellence You have overthrown those who roseagainst You; You sent forth Your wrath; It consumed them like stubble. ⁸And with the blast of Your nostrils The waters were gathered together; Thefloods stood upright like a heap; The depths congealed in the heart of the sea.⁹ The enemy said, "I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide thespoil; My desire shall be satisfied on them. I will draw my sword, My handshall destroy them." ¹⁰ You blew with Your wind, The sea coveredthem; They sank like lead in the mighty waters. ¹¹ Who is like You,O LORD, among the gods? Who is like You, glorious in holiness, Fearful inpraises, doing wonders? ¹² You stretched out Your right hand; Theearth swallowed them. ¹³ You in Your mercy have led forth The peoplewhom You have redeemed; You have guided them in Your strength To Your holyhabitation. ¹⁴ The people will hear and be afraid; Sorrow will takehold of the inhabitants of Philistia. ¹⁵ Then the chiefs of Edomwill be dismayed; The mighty men of Moab, Trembling will take hold of them; Allthe inhabitants of Canaan will melt away. ¹⁶ Fear and dread will fallon them; By the greatness of Your arm They will be as still as a stone, TillYour people pass over, O LORD, Till the people pass over Whom You havepurchased. ¹⁷ You will bring them in and plant them In the mountainof Your inheritance, In the place, O LORD, which You have made For Your owndwelling, The sanctuary, O LORD, which Your hands have established. ¹⁸The LORD shall reign forever and ever. ¹⁹ For the horses of Pharaohwent with his chariots and his horsemen into the sea, and the LORD brought backthe waters of the sea upon them. But the children of Israel went on dry land inthe midst of the sea.

²⁰ Then Miriamthe prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took the timbrel in her hand; and all thewomen wentout after her with timbrels and with dances. ²¹ And Miriamanswered them:

Sing to the LORD, For He hastriumphed gloriously! The horse and its rider He has thrown into the sea![2]

Miriam and the women sang their answer to theaccompaniment of timbrels. Antiphonal arrangements were a part of the musicalrepertoire of the Bible.

Psalm 136 also manifests an antiphonalarrangement. Group A would sing the a-portion of each verse, while Group B would respond with the b-refrain.

Now, let us imagine a family of Levites. Thefather is Jonathan, the wife is Elizabeth. Their two adult sons, Hezekiah andUzziah, are Temple singers. Hezekiah is in Group A, while Uzziah is in Group B.Imagine that Elizabeth said to Jonathan, "Did you know that our sons willsing Psalm 136 in the Templenext week?" His response to her was, "Yes, they will sing Psalm 136. When I talked to Jonathan, he told me that hewill sing Psalm 136 nextweek." Please observe: saying "Uzziah sang Psalm 136," "Jonathan sang Psalm136," and "Jonathan and Uzziah sang Psalm 136" are true statements. None of thestatements requires that either person sang every word in the psalm. Jonathansang his part; Uzziah sang his.

Likewise, we say that Moses and Miriam sang theSong of Moses without stipulating that either sang every word of the song. Wemust allow for the distributive usage of third person forms (pronouns alone ornouns in apposition to (expressed or implied) third person pronouns.[3]

Revelation 5 also has an antiphonal arrangement.Within verses 9-10 three textual variants relate to the issue. For now, we willlist each of those options without stating a preference on any of them. (At alater point in the paper, we will reach textual decisions.) Narration isunboxed. Boxes represent the words which are sung. Words enclosed in bracketsare not sung. "[A-1] -" meansthat the first variant reading for textual problem A has no word there [-];" "[A-2]us" means that us is the second variant reading for A.

⁸ Now when He had taken the scroll, thefour living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, eachhaving a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of thesaints. ⁹ And they sang a new song, saying:

¹¹ Then I looked, and I heard the voice of manyangelsaround the throne, the living creatures, and the elders; and the number of them was tenthousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands, ¹² sayingwith a loud voice:

¹³ And every creature which is inheaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and allthat are in them,I heard saying:

¹⁴ Then the four living creatures said,

And the twenty-four elders fell down and worshiped Himwho lives forever and ever.

The following page will simplify this chart by omittingthe narrative introducing each of the stanzas. (This page is here to show howthe chart on the following page was derived).

Following are the singing parts with the singerslisted:

1. The four living creatures and/orthe twenty-four elders (5:9b)

2. The four living creatures and/orthe twenty-four elders (5:10)

3. Tens of thousands of angels, the four living creatures,and the elders (Verse12b)

4. Every creature which is inheaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and allthat are in them[including angels, the living creatures, and the elders] (5:13b)

5. The four living creatures (Verse14b):

6. The twenty-four eldersfell down and worshiped (5:14c)

Observe how the choir grows and shrinks:

1. Less thantwenty-nine singers in verse 9b, small

2. Less thantwenty-nine singers in verse 10, small

3. Tens of thousands ofsingers in verse 12b, large

4. All of creation inverse 13b. larger

5. Four singers inverse 14b. small

6. Twenty-fourworshippers in verse 14c. small

Not all of the singers sing every word of thesong. Furthermore, John did not quote what the twenty-four elders said [sang?]as they worshipped in verse 14c. The fact that the four living creatures andthe twenty-four elders begin and close the worship is a manifest demonstrationthat an overall antiphonal arrangement is at work here. Now, the question iswhether an antiphonal interchange of singers occurs between verses 9b and 10.

Verses9b-10 Describe Humans, Not Angels

This is true, regardless of which variant readingsare selected.

Verse 9b

Verse 9b consists of words that will be sungabout Christ and about people of every ethnicity that He redeemed by His blood.Jesus did not redeem any angels by His blood. The idea of being out of everytribe and tongue and people and nation only applies to people.

Verse 10

Verse 10 speaks about Christ and about people whowill reign in the Millennium. It does not speak about angels, because it willbe redeemed humans that will reign, not angels.

Therefore, verses 9b-10 describe humans, notangels. By itself this fact does not tell us who sings each of the verses.However, this observation is important in identifying the singers.

VariantReadings in Relation to the Identity of the Singers

Verses 9b-10 have three pertinent variants. Thesimplest description of the translational difference between the variants wouldsay:

1. A-1, B-1, and C-1all have explicit or implicit third person pronouns: they or them.

A-1: You have redeemed[them]from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation.

B-1: You have made them kings and priests to our God.

C-1: They will reign upon the earth.

A-1, B-1, and C-1 would beappropriate words for angelic singers.

2. A-2, B-2, and C-2all have explicit first person pronouns: we or us.

A-2: You haveredeemed usfrom every tribe, tongue, people, and nation.

B-2: You have made us kings and priests to our God.

C-2: We will reign upon the earth.

A-2, B-2, and C-2 would beappropriate words for human singers.

Among published Greek texts, three preferencepatterns emerge:

1. A-1[them], +B-1 them, +C-1 they = angelicsingers in both verses,

2. A-2us, + B-2 us, + C-2 we = human singers in both verses,

3. A-2us, + B-1 them, + C-1 they = human singers in 9b; angelicsingers in 10.

The third option is antiphonal; the others arenot. Textual criticism must decide.

Implications of theThree Variants

If either verse uses a first person pronoun (we or us), then some of the singers of verses 9b-10 are human. Specifically,it would be inappropriate for anyone other than human believers to say any ofthe following:

A-2: You have redeemed us to God out of every tribe and tongue andpeople and nation.

B-2: You have made us kings and priests to our God.

C-2: We shall reign on the earth.

At this point, it is probably wise for me toindicate that this paper argues for A-2, but rejects both B-2 and C-2. In otherwords, the author's preference (based on manuscript evidence) is for anantiphonal arrangement:

A-2: You have redeemed us to God out of every tribe and tongue andpeople and nation.

B-1: You have made them kings and priests to our God.

C-1: They shall reign on the earth.

Note that the important issue is that anyone whoaccepts A-2, B-2, or C-2 will find the idea that the twenty-four elders will behuman. It is hardly conceivable for the four living creatures to be human.Thus, the only way humans could be involved in singing verse 9b and/or verse 10would be for the twenty-four elders to be human.

Conversely, the only way to exclude humans fromverses 9b-10 would be to accept A-1, B-1, and C-1. Rejection of any of these three readings would demand that theelders be human.

Implications of Viewingthe Elders as Human

If the twenty-four elders are human, then this passageis a formidable argument in favor of rapture preceding Daniel's seventiethweek. If they are human, the passage narrows down the timing of the Bema Seat,which necessarily follows the rapture. On the other hand, if the twenty-fourelders are angelic, those who reject a pre-seventieth week date for the rapturecan assert that the passage would not establish a firm timetable for the BemaSeat. Those who imagine the rapture to happen during the seventieth week canfind a convenient mouse-hole in the angelic-elder view. The human-elder viewplugs up this mouse-hole.

How so? The passage sets up a sequence of events:Verse 10 pronounces that Christ has made the twenty-four elders kings and priests. It also declares that the twenty-four elders willreign on earth. Singing aboutsuch pronouncements in regard to twenty-four humans would require that the BemaSeat has already occurred. For the Bema Seat to have occurred requires that theRapture had occurred even earlier. Furthermore, just before the elders sang thesewords, Revelation 5:4 says that John wept much because no one was found worthyto open the opisthograph and to break its seals. The elders sing (in verse 9)that Christ is worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals. Revelation 6:1is where Christ opens the first seal. Thus, if the elders are human, thesequence into which Revelation 5:9-10 fits is this:

1. Rapture: Revelation4:1,

2. The Bema (after4:1, but before the twenty-four are called elders: 4:4),

3. Singing about thedeclaration at the Bema that the elders will rule as kings (5:10),

4. Christ opens thefirst seal (6:1).

That chronology has an interesting effect thathas not often been noticed. The Bema Seat would occur between the rapture andthe opening of the first seal. That is, it would occur during the intervalbetween the rapture and the start of Daniel's seventieth week.

EvaluatingImplications of Viewing the Elders as Angelic

On the other hand, if the twenty-four elders wereangelic, a mouse-hole exists for opponents of the pre-seventieth week raptureto escape. They can say that Revelation 5:9 speaks in generic terms aboutpeople who were redeened by Christ's blood. Therefore, Revelation 5:10 wouldnot stipulate that a select group (the twenty-four elders) will reign as kingsand priests. Thus, rather thanpresupposing that the Bema Seat has already occurred, the angels might be seenas only affirming that no unredeemed people would be kings and priests in theMillennium.

It is with pleasure that this paper argues thatthe external and internal arguments for Revelation 5:9 containing the word us are overwhelming. Under any textual theory, thearguments against the inclusion of us are dreadfully weak.

Overview of Textual Issues

Most modern English versions of the New Testamenthave a decided preference for the Greek texts of Nestle-Aland and/or the UnitedBible Society.[4] This is notto say that English Bibles never choose a variant that differs with thepreferences of the NA²⁷ and UBS⁴ texts. Englishtranslations that generally favor these Greek texts, sometimes go their ownway.

However, Revelation 5:9 is a point whereallegiance to Nestle-Aland or to the United Bible Society text is inadvisable.This is a most unfortunate point for translations to have gone the way of thoseGreek texts. It is a place where the external evidence (under any theory ofmanuscript history) is indefensible. It is also a point where internal evidencestrongly argues against Nestle-Aland. We will examine both external andinternal evidence.

External Evidence for the Inclusion/Exclusionof Hēmas (5:9)

Although textual critics do not have a reputationfor being excitable, it is interesting to note what happens when the externalevidence is poor. There is a tendency follow the old dictum, "Argument weak.Pound the pulpit harder. Raise lots of red herrings. Pretend evidence isstrong." Those favoring Nestle-Aland's text in verse 9 must resort to all ofthe above.

Before considering the manuscript evidence, itmay be interesting to note what various critical Greek texts (other thanNestle-Aland and the UBS). Nestle-Aland²⁷'s "EditionumDifferentiae," shows that other critical texts have not agreed with theapproach taken by Nestle-Aland, "[5,]9 S V [M] B ut a."[5]What they mean is that the critical texts of S (von Soden), V (Vogels), and B(Bover) agreed with a in accepting tw/| qew/| h`ma/j. In addition, [M] meansthat Merk's text read tw/| qew/| h`ma/jÐ. The Alexandrian evidence foraccepting h`ma/j is strong enough that several editions have accepted thedifficult reading (first person in verse 9, but third person in verse 10). Inaddition, the Majority family evidence is strong enough that both theHodges-Farstad and Robinson-Pierpont texts accept it.

Bruce Metzger, in the first edition of his TextualCommentary, assigns a {C} gradeto his acceptance of hēmas.Certainly, this does not exude confidence in the reading. Note that he startsout by apologizing for external evidence being, as he puts it, slight. Heattempts to rescue himself by appealing to an internal argument (which we willcritique later).

5.9 tw/| qew/| {C}

Although the evidence for tw/| qew/| is slight (A eth) [A = manuscript Alexandrinus; eth = theEthiopic version], this reading best accounts for the origin of the others.Wishing to provide hvgo,rasaj with a more exactly determined object than isfound in the words evk pa,shj fulh/j ktl[e.g., etc.], some scribes introduced h`ma/j either before tw/|qew/| (94 2344 al) or after tw/|qew/| (a 046 1006 1611 2053 al),while others replaced tw/| qew/| with h`ma/j (1 2065* Cyprian al). Those who made the emendations, however, overlooked theunsuitability of h`ma/j with auvtou,j in the following verse [verse 10] (where,indeed, the Textus Receptus reads h`ma/j, but with quite inadequateauthority) [Bold added].[6]

With regard to an irrelevant red herring, Metzgercastigated the Textus Receptus in verse 10 for following "quite inadequate[external] authority." It is true that the TR of verse 10 relies upon only afew manuscripts. It is also true that those couple of manuscripts constitute"quite inadequate [external] authority," but people in glass houses should notthrow stones. Remember that Metzger admitted that "the evidence for tw/| qew/| isslight." He could have added that he accepts his reading in verse 9 "with quiteinadequate authority." This looks like a case of falling in love with areading, despite the fact that slight evidence constitutes quite inadequate authority.

Grant Osborne tried to put the best face on theexternal evidence, by saying, "Although there is not a lot of manuscriptevidence. . . ." Evidence is weak, so he pounds the pulpit harder.

5:9. The text-critical problemhere is essential for the identification of the elders in chapters 4-5. If thetext should read hvgo,rasaj tw/| qew/| h`ma/j with a 046 1006 1611 et al. (942344 et al. place h`ma/j before tw/| qew/|), then the twenty-four elders (5:8)are indeed human rather than angels. There are several problems with this,however, and most prefer to omit "us." Although there is not a lot ofmanuscript evidence for "purchased for God" (A eth), Metzger (1994: 666) isprobably correct in asserting that the shorter reading best explains thelonger. Later scribes provided an object to tell the reader who was "purchasedfor God." Moreover, if "us" is part of the text, then the four living creaturesas well as the elders (5:8) would have been redeemed, and the living creaturesare certainly celestial beings.[7]

What is interesting is that Kurt Aland, BruceMetzger, and Grant Osborne follow what is often called the reasoned eclectic school of textual criticism. That is an approachwhich emphasizes a balance between external and internal criticism in reachingtextual decisions. It is a school known for its critiques of the thorough-goingeclecticism of George Kilpatrick and J.K. Elliott. The latter school arguesthat any reading supported by two Greek manuscripts is fair game. In otherwords, thorough-going eclectics would say that any reading supported by atleast two manuscripts has a possibility of being the original text, even ifevery manuscript other than those two supported it. The reason they require twomanuscripts is because they regard solecisms (any reading supported by only onemanuscript) as probable scribal blunders.

What do reasoned eclectics say aboutthorough-going eclectics? They regard them as radical, alleging (correctly)that thorough-going eclectics approach textual emendation. That is, theyminimize external evidence to such a point that it is almost as if they were writingtheir own text, rather than relying on manuscript authority.

The odd thing is that Aland, Metzger, and Osbornerely upon only one manuscript in Revelation 5:9, which is even more radicalthan what the thorough-going eclectics would do.

Consult the final page of this paper for apresentation of the external evidence. Remember that neither Metzger norOsborne were bragging about their external evidence. Reasoned eclectics likeMetzger normally scoff at anyone considering a reading supported by two manuscripts.Here he is trying to convince people that one manuscript is sufficient. In thesame paragraph, he critiques the TR for its acceptance of a reading with a fewmanuscripts supporting it.

TheInternal Argument that Metzger Avoids

Since Metzger abandons external evidence as thebasis for deciding Revelation 5:9, one would expect the internal evidence to becompelling. Oddly enough, he avoids mentioning Hoskier's observation aboutmanuscript Alexandrinus (published in 1929). His two volume work is a standardreference work on Revelation. Hoskier says,

But what shall we do in thisdoctrinal and important verse [Revelation 5:9] in the matter of the omission ofh`ma/j by A only? 'Who hast redeemed us.'

The Alexandrine MS. [A, Alexandrinus] drops theword between two columns. Nevertheless Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisersfollow suit with this authority only. No cursives [e.g., minuscules], not a, B[Hoskier's name for 046], or P [hiat C], no Versions but aeth [e.g., Ethiopic] which isunreliable in such a matter, frequently balking at any difficulty [such asjuxtaposing first person (v 9) with third person (v 10)].[8]

The key assertion is that Alexandrinus "drops theword [hēmas] betweencolumns." In other words, the scribe ended a line of text on the bottom of onecolumn. Then, he started at the top of the next column. The word hēmas should have been the first word on the top ofthe second column, but the scribe suffered a mental lapse.

The likelihood of a scribal lapse is so greatthat Alexandrinus cannot be trusted here. The fact that no other Greekmanuscript supports it reinforces the impression that the scribe justblundered.

Consider the layout of Alexandrinus. Althoughthere are fifty lines of text on each column of the page in question, this textwill only give the last line of the first column and the first line of theother. The letters are all uncials (capitals). No word-spacing or punctuationis present. The letters to the right of the bracket "[" have been damagedbeyond recognition.

Schematic of Alexandrinus in Uncial Text

HMAS would go here

In lower case text with word-spacing, the lettersappear as below (with qew spelled out, rather than abbreviated as one of the nominasacra).

Schematic of Alexandrinus in Minuscule Text

hmajwould go here

Not only is Alexandrinus unreliable at thispoint, but Hoskier argues that the Ethiopic had difficulty reconciling afirst-person form in verse 9 with two third-person forms in verse 10. In otherwords, he argues that the Ethiopic intentionally omitted hmaj in verse 9,because of not understanding that the song is antiphonal (give-and-take).Hoskier has deftly taken away any hope of the internal arguments suggested byMetzger or Osborne from explaining what really happened.

InternalArguments Suggested by Metzger, et al.

By ignoring what Hoskier said back in 1929,Metzger and Osborne attempt to bolster inherently weak arguments. Their bravadofails to overcome Hoskier.

5.9 tw/| qew/| {C}

Although the evidence for tw/| qew/| is slight (Aeth) [A = manuscript Alexandrinus; eth = the Ethiopic version], this readingbest accounts for the origin of the others. Wishing to provide hvgo,rasaj with amore exactly determined objectthan is found in the words evk pa,shj fulh/j ktl[e.g., etc.], some scribes introduced h`ma/j either before tw/|qew/| (94 2344 al) or after tw/|qew/| (a 046 1006 1611 2053 al),while others replaced tw/| qew/| with h`ma/j (1 2065* Cyprian al). Those who made the emendations, however, overlooked theunsuitability of h`ma/j with auvtou,j in the following verse [verse 10] (where, indeed, the Textus Receptusreads h`ma/j, but with quite inadequate authority) [Bold added].[9]

Metzger tries to put forward the idea that thescribes added h`ma/j ("us"), because they wanted an explicit direct object inverse 9. However, he then asserts that they created a contradiction betweenverse 9 and verse 10. Let us pretend that his theory is correct. In that case,why is it that almost no Greek manuscripts replace the third person forms inverse 10 with first person forms. Observe that Metzger himself testifies to howfew did so, when he says, "indeed, the Textus Receptus reads h`ma/j, but withquite inadequate authority." Dr. Metzger seems unaware that there is nounsuitability, because the passage is antiphonal. The first person forms workquite well in verse 9, where humans (the twenty-four elders) are singing. Thethird person forms are appropriate to verse 10, where the four living creaturesare singing about the future reign of the twenty-four elders.

Grant Osborne is quite wrong in asserting thatthe presence of us in verse 9 would require that both the four living creaturesand the twenty-four elders be human. He is oblivious to the distributive use ofplurals. He assumes that all twenty-eight beings sing every word of the song.As we argued earlier, verses 9-10 are antiphonal.

5:9. The text-critical problemhere is essential for the identification of the elders in chapters 4-5. If thetext should read hvgo,rasaj tw/| qew/| h`ma/j with a 046 1006 1611 et al. (942344 et al. place h`ma/j before tw/| qew/|), then the twenty-four elders (5:8)are indeed human rather than angels. There are several problems with this,however, and most prefer to omit "us." Although there is not a lot ofmanuscript evidence for "purchased for God" (A eth), Metzger (1994: 666) isprobably correct in asserting that the shorter reading best explains thelonger. Later scribes provided an object to tell the reader who was "purchasedfor God." Moreover, if "us" is part of the text, then the four livingcreatures as well as the elders (5:8) would have been redeemed, and the livingcreatures are certainly celestial beings.[10]

He is unaware that an antiphonal arrangementovercomes his objections.

Robert Mounceclearly overstates the evidence when he says, "The most accurate texts omit thefirst italicized pronoun [h`ma/j in verse 9]," How can he say texts, when Alexandrinus is the only Greek text tosupport the reading that he accepts for verse 9. Clearly, he offers a snow jobon verse 9. This paper concurs with the reading that he accepts for verse 10,but how can he classify h`ma/j inverse 9 among "inferior variants"?

The idea that the elders were the ones purchased byChrist's death stems from inferior variants that make the text read, "Thou wastslain, and hast redeemed us to God . . . and hast made us unto our God kings and priests:and we shallreign on the earth" (AV, italics added). The most accurate texts omit thefirst italicized pronoun and read "them" and "they" for the other two (cf. NRSV margin)[Bold added].[11]

Of course, Mounce needs to omit the us, because its presence would be fatal to his post-seventieth-weekview of the rapture.

G.K. Beale offers a far-more balanced view,although he underestimates the strength of the internal and external argumentfor h`ma/j in verse 9.

External evidence clearly favors the inclusion of hmaj("us") either before (94 2344 al), after (a [S 2050 2344] [lat] sy), or instead of (12065* Cypr al)tw/| qew/| ("to God") as a more specific direct object than ("every tribe,tongue, people, and nation." Although only A and eth completely exclude hmaj("us"), many interpreters (including NA²⁶) still argue that thesetwo mss. [sic: eth is not a ms., but a version] preserve the original ("heredeemed to God"). They do so, first, because the shorter reading is moredifficult, not having as precise an object. It is more likely that a scribewould attempt to clarify the direct object rather than the opposite. Thisstylistic abruptness is another expression of the Semitic influence that ischaracteristic of Revelation (e.g., note especially other partitive expressionswith evk ["from"] introduced like that of v 9b: 2:10; 3:9; 5:7; 11:9; in allthese cases the ancient versions and even modern translations supply a morespecific direct object). Secondly, hmaj ("us") is not consistent with auvtou.j("them") in what follows in v 10 ("he made them to God" [only the TR has theimprobable variant "us" instead of ("them") in v 10]; nor is "us" in v 9harmonious with the third person plural basileu,sousin ["reign"] in v 10).

It is usually thought that "us" both here and in v 10 isnot original, and since "them" in v 10 is less disputed both on external andinternal grounds, the "us" of v 9 is likely secondary. On the other hand, itmay not be so improbable that "us" in v 9 and "them" in v 10 could both beoriginal, since this would also be a difficult reading, but not impossiblydifficult because the liturgical atmosphere could justify the change in personbetween v 9 and v 10. Also the parallelism of "he made them to God" (v 10) with "heredeemed to God" (v 9) might point to the presence of a specific object in thelatter phrase. In addition, there is the possibility that the scribe of codex Aaccidentally dropped the "us" when he went from the bottom of one column of thepage to begin writing at the top of the next column (one column concludes with HGORASASTW QEW and EN TW AIMATI SOU).

The better part of wisdom is to acknowledge the equalpossibility of both readings (even UBS registers a high degree of doubt in v9). In this light, "us" in v 9 should not serve as a strong argument foridentifying the twenty-four elders as saints or representatives of saints, norshould the omission of "us" be an absolute argument against such anidentification.[12]

Conclusion

Revelation5:8-14 shows a choir that starts out small, becomes huge, but ends with worshipby the small groups (the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures) thatbegan the singing. The passage manifests an antiphonal arrangement, just as dothe Song of Moses and Psalm 136.

Weargued that verses 9-10 also display an antiphonal arrangement. TheNestle-Aland and UBS texts follow a solecism of one manuscript, which is apractice that reasoned eclectics normally reject. In fact, they commonly arguethat following a pair of manuscripts (the practice of thorough-going eclectics)is extreme and should be avoided. However, in Revelation 5:9,reasoned-eclecticism is abandoned in favor of something more radical thanthorough-going eclecticism.

Onewould imagine that the internal arguments that would be adduced would bepowerful. Instead, Metzger and others seem to have totally neglected theantiphonal arrangement that characterizes the singing in Revelation 5. The factthat Metzger regards the use of third person forms in verse 10 while verse 9has a first person form to evidence unsuitability. The question arises as to why only a handful ofscribes would replace the third person forms in verse 10 with first personforms. Maybe the idea of unsuitability only convinces those who overlook theantiphonal arrangement of the passage.

Furthermore,they conveniently forget to mention that the scribe who copied Alexandrinuscould easily have drifted mentally as he finished one column and startedanother. He left a word out of his text.

Internaland external evidence leads to the conclusion that the passage is antiphonal.

Elderssing:

You have redeemed us to God out of every tribe and tongue andpeople and nation.

LivingCreatures respond:

You have made them kings and priests to our God. They shall reign on the earth.

With this understanding, the passage teaches the followingeschatological sequence:

1. Rapture: Revelation4:1,

2. The Bema (after4:1, but before the twenty-four are called elders: 4:4),

3. Singing about thedeclaration at the Bema that the elders will rule as kings (5:10),

4. Christ opens thefirst seal (6:1).

Revelation 5:9-10 is a wonderful demonstrationthat the rapture precedes Daniel's seventieth week. The twenty-four elders willbe rewardable church-age believers, who will reign as kings and priests in theMillennium.

[1] Bruce M. Metzger, "When Did Scribes Begin to UseWriting Desks?" in Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, andChristian, NTTS, ed. Bruce Metzger,vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 123-34, esp. 123 and 134, notes that "anaccumulation of artistic, archaeological, and literary evidence" shows thatwriting desks arrived late, becoming popular in the eighth or ninth centuries.Cf. also Jaroslav ‡erný, Paper and Books in Ancient Egypt (London: Lewis, 1952), 13-14; George M. Parssoglou,"Decia. Xei.r kai.Go/nu: Some Thoughts on the Postures ofAncient Greeks and Romans when Writing on Papyrus Rolls," Scrittura eCivilt 3 (1979): 5-21; and idem, "ARoll upon His Knees," in Papyrology,ed. Naphtali Lewis, YCS, ed. Naphtali Lewis, vol. 28 (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1985), 273-75. E. G. Turner, The Papyrologist at Work, GRBM, ed. William H. Willis, vol. 6 (Durham, NC:Duke University Press, 1973), 5-6, agrees, other than to say that scribes mayhave used small lapboards. Cf. idem, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World, 2d rev. and enl. ed., ed. P. J. Parsons, BulletinSupplement, ed. J. P. Barron, vol. 46 (London: University of London Instituteof Classical Studies, 1987), 5-6. Kenneth W. Clark, "The Posture of the AncientScribe," Biblical Archaeologist 26(June 1963): 63-72, demonstrates that scribes at Qumran did not use writingdesks. [This note comes from my dissertation: John H. Niemel, "The Infrequencyof Twin Departures: An End to Synoptic Reversibility?" (Ph.D. dissertation:Dallas Theological Seminary, 2000): 404-5, and n. 11 on page 405.

[2] Unlessotherwise noted, all Scripture citations are from the New King James Version (Nashville: Nelson, 1982).

[3]An example of a distributive usage of theyfollows: They were husbands andwives. This does not imagine that anyone is a husband-wife. The distributiveuse of they would convert into the following: Some of them were husbands andothers of them were wives. The distributive usage is one of the features atwork which allows us to say that Jonathan and Uzziah sang Psalm 136, eventhough neither sang the entire psalm. Both were singers and what they sangactually came from Psalm 136. This is within normal usage of language.

[4] Prior to therelease of the NA²⁷ and UBS⁴ texts there were about halfa dozen places where these two texts did not agree in wording. Furthermore,there were a number of punctuation differences. With the current editions ofthese texts, their wording and punctuation became identical.

[5] Nestle-Aland²⁷, "Editionum Differentiae," 768.

[6] Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on theGreek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' GreekNew Testament (Third Edition), (N.p.:United Bible Societies, 1971), 738. Note that Metzger rated this reading as"{C}" in 1971, indicating division within the UBS committee. The reading tw/| qew/| h`mw/n has far stronger Alexandrian (as well as Byzantine)manuscript support than tw/|qew/|, so some members of the committeepreferred that reading. Since then, Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentaryon the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies'Greek New Testament (Fourth Revised Edition), (N.p.: United Bible Societies, 1994), 666, has revised this problemto an "{A}," despite listing the same scant evidence.

[7] Grant R.Osborne, Revelation, Baker ExegeticalCommentary on the New Testament, ed. Moiss Silva (Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic, 2002), 268.

[8] H.C.Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, 2 vols. (London: Quartitch, 1929; reprint, n.p.: Good Books, n.d.),1:xxvi.

[9] Metzger, Textual Commentary, 1971, 738.

[10] Osborne, Revelation, 268.

[11] Robert H.Mounce, The Book of Revelation, rev.ed., NICNT, ed. Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 1998),136.

[12] G.K. Beale,The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC, ed. I. Howard Marshall and Donald A. Hagner(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1999), 360.