22:1. “And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.”
“The waters streaming from the fountain Etam were not conveyed into the city, but into the Temple….And probably Aristeas hath respect to this aqueduct:….’There is a confluence of water that never fails [speaking of the Temple]: as if there were a great spring within naturally flowing: and for the space of five furlongs (as appeared everywhere about the Temple), there were certain receptacles made, under the earth, by a wondrous and unspeakable art.’ And a little after: ‘They led me out of the city above four furlongs, where one bade me lean down my head at a certain place, and listen to the noise that the flow of water there made,’ &c.
“In a word, to any one that is conversant in the Talmudic authors, nothing can be more plain than that the aqueduct from the fountain of Etam was into the Temple, and not into the city; ….
“As to the Water-gate, we find it mentioned Neh.iii.26, situated on the east wall of the city; called the ‘Water-gate’ because through that the waters flowed out of the Temple; and perhaps those also out of Bethesda. For whereas the waters ran incessantly out of Etam into the Temple, and those that were more than needed flowed out of the Temple, they all fell down into the valley that lay between the Temple and Jerusalem, and emptied themselves by that gate which bore the name of the ‘Water-gate’ upon that account. And it is probable that the pool of Bethesda, which also had its constant supply by the aqueduct from the spring of Siloam, did also continually empty itself along the descent of the hill Acra, through the same gate, and so into the brook Kedron.” [1:367-8]
22:1. “…river of water of life…”
One of the gates on the south of the Court of Israel was called the ‘gate of waters’. At this gate the ceremony of the pouring of water was performed at the Feast of Tabernacles. It was at this gate that the waters of the fountain Etam were diverted into the Temple. One Rabbi says that this place “was the highest in the land of Israel.” [1:71]
22:2. “In the midst of the street of it and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits…”
The traditions of the Jews ruled that the tithe of the fruit within a days’ journey of Jerusalem should be brought into the city and could not be redeemed, so that the streets of the city would be ‘crowned with fruit’.
The Revelator, however, saw the Holy City, New Jerusalem, filled with fresh fruits from trees planted by the waters whose fruit did not fail, as described in Psalm 1:3. [1:38]
[Davies 306] “‘In the world to come there is neither eating nor drinking, no marital relations, no business affairs, no envy, hatred nor quarrelling; but the righteous sit with their garlands on their heads, enjoying the splendid light of the Divine Presence (Shekinah) as it is said: And they beheld God and they ate and drank (Exod.24.11).8 [Note 8: “b.Ber. 17a.]”
22:3 “And there shall be no more curse….”
[Davies, 331] Sotah 15.2: “…. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said in the name of R. Joshua, ‘Since the day of the destruction of the Temple there has not been a day without some curse, the dew has not come down as a blessing and the taste of the fruits has been taken away’.”
22:4-5: “And they shall see his face; and his name [shall be] in their foreheads. 5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.”
[Davies, 332] Passages from SIFRE on Num. and Deut., early second century?: On Num. 6:25 ¶ 41 “…. ‘The Lord make his face to shine upon thee’ …Another interpretation [runs]: ‘make to shine’– this is the light of the Torah, as it is said, ‘For the commandment is a lamp and the Torah a light.'”
These poor blinded Jews had it backwards; they thought that the Torah was the light that made God’s face shine instead of the truth that God’s face is what makes the Torah shine.
[Davies, 214] “The Shekinah stands for the Presence of God Himself and is often a metonymy, as we saw, for God.” [Note 2: “b. Sukk.5a; b. Sanh.39a; b. Sot.17a.”]
22:11: “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.”
[Davies, 339]: Passages from TANHUMA 9ed. Salomon Buber; Wilna, 1885). Wayyigash, p. 208 ¶9: “…. ‘Come and see how that all that the Holy One, Blessed be He, smote in this world, He healed in the Age to Come. The blind are healed, as it is said, ‘Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened.’ And the lame shall be healed, as it is said, ‘Then shall the lame man leap as a hart.’ And the dumb shall be healed, as it is said, ‘And the tongue of the dumb shall sing.’ All shall be healed. But as a man departs so shall he return: he departed blind, and he will return blind, he departed lame, and he will return lame, he departed dumb, and he will return dumb. In the manner which he departed he will return– he that departed clothed will return clothed.'”
These poor Rabbis did not understand that those Christ healed would remain healed forever. Neither did they understand that those who remained in their infirmities were only those who rejected Him, the Healer.
22:15. “For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.”
“…those without, in Jewish speech, were the Gentiles…”
“…books that are without, are heathen books…extraneous books of Greek wisdom.
“The word…those without, occurs also in the Talmudists, when it signifies the Jews themselves: that is, some of the Jewish nation. Here…the Karaites, who rejected traditions, there…those without, are opposed to …the wise men: ‘He that puts his phylacteries on his forehead, or in the palm of his hand…behold! he follows the custom of the Karaites. And he that overlays one of them with gold, and puts it upon his garment which is at his hand…behold! he follows the custom of those that are without. Where the Gloss, ‘… are men who follow their own will, and not the judgment of the wise men.’ They are supposed to wear phylacteries, and to be Jews; but when they do according to their pleasure, and despise the rules of the wise men, they are esteemed as those that are without, or heathens…” [2:407-8]
By the title ‘dogs’ “…the Jews, out of spite and contempt, disgraced the Gentiles, whose first care it was to hate, to mock, and to curse, all beside themselves….The nations of the world [that is, the heathen] are likened to dogs. From the common speech of the nation, rather than from his own sense, our Saviour uses this expression…. [i.e., Matt. 15:26].
“This ignominious name, like a stone cast at the heathen, at length fell upon their own heads; and that by the hand and justice of God directing it: for although they out of pride and contempt fixed that disgraceful name upon the Gentiles, according to their very just desert, the Holy Spirit recoiled it upon themselves. See Psal.lix.6; Phil.iii.2; Rev. xxii.15. &c.” [2:230-1]
22:18-19. “…if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in the book. And 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.”
The original Hebrew Scriptures were not pointed, that is, they did not contain the indication of vowels. As is easily demonstrated, the vowels in a word usually determine what the word is. Without the vowel points, the reading was determined by tradition. When the traditionalists became so corrupt that they corrupted the Word of God, it became necessary for the Sacred writings to be pointed in order to avoid confusion. When and how this was done is a matter of debate, but is generally thought to have been in about the tenth century A.D..
Lightfoot comments on this: “There are some who believe the holy Bible was pointed by the wise men of Tiberias. I do not wonder at the impudence of the Jews, who invented the story; but I wonder at the credulity of Christians, who applaud it. Recollect, I beseech you, the names of the Rabbins of Tiberias, from the first situation of the university there, to the time that it expires: and what at length do you find, but a kind of men mad with Pharisaism, bewitching with traditions and bewitched; blind, guileful, doting; they must pardon me, if I say magical and monstrous? Men, how unfit, how unable, how foolish, for the undertaking so divine a work! Read over the Jerusalem Talmud, and see there how R. Judah, R. Chaninah, R. Judan, R. Hoshaia, R. Chaija Rubba, R. Chaija Bar Ba, R. Jochanan, R. Jonathan, and the rest of the grand doctors among the Rabbins of Tiberias, behave themselves! how earnestly they do nothing! how childishly they handle serious matters! how much of sophistry, froth, poison, smoke, nothing at all, there is in their disputes! And if you can believe the Bible was pointed in such a school, believe also all that the Talmudists write. The pointing of the Bile savours of the work of the Holy Spirit, not the work of lost, blinded, besotted men.” [1:160]
There is an account both in Josephus and in Aristeas of the translation of the Hebrew Bible into the Greek: [4:141] “…’When the volumes of the law had been read through, the priests, and interpreters, and elders, and governors of the city, and all the princes of the people standing by, said…’Forasmuch as this interpretation is rightly, religiously, and in every thing so very accurately finished, it is fit that all things should continue as they are, and no alteration should be made.’ When all had by acclamations given their approbation to these things, Demetrius commanded…that, any that should, by addition, or alteration, or diminution, ever make any change in it. This they did well in, that all things might be kept entire and inviolate for ever.'” [4:309-314]
22:19. “For 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: And 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. “
This passage pronounces a curse, or anathema, upon any who would change the words of the Book. Commenting on the imprecation {i.e. the curse or anathema}, in 1 Cor. 16:22, “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maran-atha,” Lightfoot describes the meaning of the curse:
“… The word anathema sounds indeed all one with … cherem among the Hebrews; …. And the word is taken in a threefold sense, especially in the holy Scripture; which the author of Aruch notes in the word … cherem, and that from the author of Tosaphoth.
“I. … the anathema, or somewhat devoted to the priests, that is, something which, being consecrated to God, necessarily falls to the priests….
“II. … An anathema, or that which is devoted to the Most High. Examples of which you have, Lev.xxvii.27, 28, &c. … that which is devoted to heaven.
“III. … An anathema which is devoted of men. Of this, Lev.xxvii.29….Every anathema, or devoted of men, shall not be redeemed, but shall die the death. But what is the anathema of men? The author of Tosaphoth answered, … He that is condemned to death by the Sanhedrim.… ‘Whence is it that when any, condemned to die by the Sanhedrim, is led forth to suffer death, another goes forth interceding and saying, ‘I will pay for his redemption:’ whence is it, I say, that he saith this to no purpose? Namely thence, because it is said, ‘Every anathema of men shall not be redeemed, but shall be punished with death….’
“And now, in reference to the words Maran-atha, very many commentators agree that this phrase is a certain form of excommunication, and that it is the highest and heaviest. ‘Thus (say they) is the extremest kind of anathema marked; as though he would say, ‘Cursed be he to the coming, and in the coming, of the Lord.’
“They assert this to be the third kind of excommunication among the Jews, and think that it sounds the same with … schammatha, and interpret … God cometh to the same sense….
“What the apostle means by Maran-atha we shall more easily trace when we shall have observed this first, that the apostle chiefly directs the dint and stroke of this anathema and curse against the unbelieving Jews, who were most bitter enemies against the Lord Jesus and his gospel: which I cannot but think, being induced thereunto by these four reasons:
“I. Because the Jews, above all other of the human race, loved not the Lord Jesus, neither yet do love him. The holy Scripture teaches this abundantly; unhappy experience teaches it. The pagans, indeed, love not Jesus because they know him not: but, because they know him not, neither do they hate him. The Turks, indeed love not Jesus in that manner as the Christians do, but they do not hate him in that manner as do the Jews.
“II. Because he speaks here in the language and dialect of the Jews, namely, in that Syriac phrase, Maran-atha. He had spoken Greek through the whole Epistle; he speaks Greek in all his Epistles: but when he speaks here in the Jewish language, the thing itself speaks it, without all controversy, that he speaks concerning the Jews.
“III. The Jews only of all mortals called Jesus accursed… therefore the apostle deservedly strikes them, above all other mortals, with a curse, rendering like for like. {No.}
“IV. Hither I, or rather doth the apostle, bring those words of Isaiah, chap.lxv.15, ‘Ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen.’ Hither also may be brought that of Mal., chap.iv., wherewith the Old Testament is concluded … Lest I come and smite the land with (anathema) a curse. Lest I come: this is the same with that which the apostle saith, Maran-atha, the Lord cometh. And I will smite with anathema, the same with that in this verse, Let him be anathema. Against whom is the threatening in the prophet? Against the unbelieving Jews. Against the same is both the threatening and curse of the apostle, taken (methinks) out of the very words of the prophet.
“And now you may easily fetch out the sense of the word Maran-atha. The holy Scripture speaks great and terrible things concerning the coming of Christ to punish the nation of the Jews, for their not loving, yea, hating Christ, and treading the gospel under foot. It is called his ‘coming in his kingdom, in the clouds, in glory:’ which we observe elsewhere. So that I should much more readily interpret this expression Maran-atha, that is our Lord cometh, in this sense, from this common manner of speech, and which is so very usual to the Scripture, than to run to I know not what Jewish form; which yet is not at all to be met with among the Jews.” [4:282-5]
The story of the translation of the Scriptures from the Hebrew text is given both in Josephus and in Aristeas. That given by the Talmudists, however is very different:
“There is a story of five elders who transcribed the law for Ptolemy the king in Greek. And that day was bitter to Israel as the day wherein the golden calf was made; because the law could not be turned according to all things requisite to it. And again there is a story of king Ptolemy, that he assembled seventy-two elders together, and disposed them into seventy-two cells, … but he revealed not to them why he had assembled them. But coming in to every one of them, he said to them, ‘Write me out the law of Moses your master.’ God put counsel into each of their hearts, that their minds agreed in one. And they wrote out for him the law by itself; but they changed thirteen places in it….” [4:299-300]
Lightfoot discusses whether or not this was a translation or only a transcription of the Hebrew characters (alphabet) into the Greek characters. Also whether or not it was only the law, or the other books also. He discusses the esteem, or lack of it, that the Jews had for these books in Greek. Although the Greek version of Aquila was sometimes quoted in the Jerusalem Talmud, and even prohibited books were cited, the LXX was never quoted: “…I do not remember that I have found one clause alleged out of the version of the Seventy in the whole Talmud, either one or other.”
“By no argument, therefore, shall any persuade me that that version was a pure and accurate version, exactly according to the Hebrew truth which the interpreters had in their hands; and that the differences which we now perceive in our Bibles were risen thence, that the Jews depraved the Hebrew text according to their pleasure. For I shall never believe that any masters of the Jews would exhibit a pure, uncorrupted, and exact Bible to the heathen, in the Greek version; and obtrude an interpolated, depraved, corrupt one upon themselves…. [4:306]
Lightfoot goes on to suppose that the rest of the Bible was translated by the Sanhedrin, and that in order that those who ruled them might know what their laws were in order that they would not be overly suspect. But even in that version called the ‘LXX’ or ‘the Seventy’ there are deliberate alterations, Lightfoot suspects: “…Even a blear eye may see clearly enough that it was hammered out, and dressed with more caution than conscience, more craft than sincerity: 1. That, as much as might be, the holy books might remain free from any reproach or cavilling of the heathen: 2. That they might soften some things which might be injurious to the Jewish nation, either as to their peace or reputation, or which might create offence to the Gentiles: 3. That the mysteries and the bare truth of the holy books might be revealed as little as possibly could be to the heathen….
Concerning the saying that “that day was bitter to Israel, as the day wherein the golden calf was made,”…”… their trouble proceeded rather from hence, that those five had not translated it cunningly, warily, and craftily enough, as the Gentiles were to be dealt withal.” [4:311-12]
22:19. “And 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.”
All of the peculiar interpretations based upon special codes and uses of the alphabet are dealt with when Christ stated in Matt. 5:18 that “One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
“But that our Saviour by…jot and tittle, did not only understand the bare letters, or the little marks that distinguished them, appears sufficiently from verse 19, where he renders it, one of ‘these least commands:’ in which sense is that also in the Jerusalem Gemara of Solomon’s rooting out Jod, that is, evacuating that precept …He shall not multiply wives. And yet it appears enough hence, that our Saviour also so far asserts the uncorrupt immortality and purity of the holy text, that no particle of the sacred sense should perish, from the beginning of the law to the end of it.” [2:102]
“When I take notice of this passage, that ‘five of the elders translated the law into Greek for Ptolemy;’ and that in Josephus‘, that ‘the law only was translated:’ and both these before so much as the name or sect of the Sadducees, was known in the world, I begin to suspect the Sadducees, especially the Samaritans, might have drawn something from this example: at least, if that be true that is related by Aristeas; that he was under an anathema that should add any thing to or alter any thing in that version…. those ancients of great name having rendered those five books only into Greek, seem to have consigned no other for books of a divine stamp….”