But, as has often been observed, we must be wary about any
expectation that the grammar in Revelation must exhibit impeccable
clarity. When a very natural understanding is possible with only a
little "fudging" on the grammar, that's much better than an awkward
understanding that conserves grammatical precision. For example, 11:1
reads KAI EDOQH MOI KALAMOS ... LEGWN .... "And a reed was given to
me..., saying..." Say what? How in the world does a reed say
something? This precisely grammatical interpretation yields nonsense.
It is obvious that the subject of LEGWN is not what precise grammar
would dictate--the subject of the passive verb EDOQH (the reed)--but
rather the contextually understood AGENT of that passive verb (most
likely an angel).
But no such "revisioning" is needed in 5:6; hWS ESFAGMENON can simply
be taken attributively, it seems to me.
****************************
In Love to God and Neighbor,
Randy Leedy
Bob Jones University
Greenville, SC
RLeedy@bju.edu
****************************