Revelation 22:18-19 Perhaps A Better Way To Look At It

[snipe123]

I realize that the argument of a closed cannon is not totally based on this scripture alone, but this scripture is central to that belief. I am not ignoring the other scriptures, (perhaps they can be discussed in other threads), but I would like to confine this thread to a discussion of this scripture in particular…The reasons will hopefully be apparent:

In this post we will examine:

1) How Revelation 22:18-19 is understood and interpreted by most Evangelical Christians.
2) How most Latter-Day Saints understand and interpret this scripture and answer the objections of Evangelical Christians.
3) How both groups are missing an extremely important point that is vital in understanding what this scripture is saying.

As recorded in the King James Version of the Bible, Revelation 22:18-19 reads as follows:

18 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:
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.

The Traditional Christian Interpretation:

There are variations on this general theme (and this is not intended to be a comprehensive account of every variation), and certainly not every one of these points are made by every person quoting this scripture as a basis for belief in a closed cannon of scripture, but the following principles can, and are derived by various Christians on this subject.

So the argument goes something like this:

This scripture signifies that the books of The Bible comprise in total, the written word of God conveyed to man. It indicates that the cannon of scripture is closed and that the Bible represents the only authoritative scripture that man may use to aid in their quest for God. The Bible is infallible, unchangeable, unalterable, perfect, complete, and is regarded by God to be the only text we will ever need for learning how to return to his perfect presence. No other scriptures are necessary or authorized. This is Gods stamp of approval on the Bible as it is currently comprised and even though John was no doubt referring to his book when he wrote this scripture, it was God who determined the order in which this book would appear in the Cannon. It is no accident that God inspired John to write it, and that this warning was placed at the end of The Holy Bible, to include the entire Bible in its warning.
Mormons and any other religious sect therefore, cannot possibly have additional scripture since the Bible forbids it. There is no need to investigate, read, let alone pray about any other books claiming to be scripture, since it is not possible for there to be any other scripture besides The Holy Bible. Additionally, any other books claiming to be the written word of God are forgeries inspired by man or the devil. Any church which makes use of additional scripture therefore, must then have at their very foundation, a malicious deception designed to deceive God’s children and lead them into a belief in a false Gospel, and distract them from studying and contemplating the perfect word of God as recorded in The Holy Bible. The Holy Bible is God breathed, vast and glorious in and of itself, and a lifetime of study cannot possibly uncover all of its secrets, so why would anyone want to study any other books claiming to be Gods word? Why would God give us any more scripture when the Bible clearly instructs us on every aspect of our lives?

Mormons respond to this usually with one or all of the following six points given here briefly:

1) John was only talking about the book of Revelation, since The Bible did not exist then.
2) The book of John was written after Revelation (most scholars believe) so do we toss out the book of John since it “adds to” Revelation.
3) There is a similar verse in Deuteronomy, so do we toss out everything after that book?
4) Or they try to point out what they see as inconsistencies or contradictions in the Bible to show that it is not perfect.
5) There are references to “lost books” of scripture in The Bible itself that are not contained in it.
6) (Perhaps the most peaceful and reasonable response, and in my view, the most relevant of the responses that are typically used) This scripture says nothing about God adding to, or taking from his word, only man.

Though fascinating, I do not wish to expound on these arguments and delve into them in detail because to most readers on this forum they are self explanatory, very familiar, or have been discussed exhaustibly before. While there is some merit to the statements above, they are pointless because they make the wrong argument (which I will get to in a moment).

In my experience (and I am loath to admit that I used these arguments at the beginning of my mission 15 years ago) these arguments (with the exception of #6 perhaps, which is the best of the six) lead to often heated debates that have never convinced anyone, or led to one single conversion from the “traditional” Christian view, to the Mormon one. The arguments go in hopeless circles between the “traditional” Christian who believes the Bible is flawless and complete, and the Mormon, who is attacking that belief…Neither get anywhere, and often leads to very contentious circumstances that the Holy Spirit cannot abide.

So I think there is a much better way to look at this…

As recorded in the King James Version of the Bible, Revelation 22:18-19 reads again as follows:

18 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:
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.

This scripture is entirely true and Mormons should be testifying to its truth and validity just as it stands without any reference at all to any of the common arguments mentioned above. Rather than viewing this scripture as a “problem” that must be argued against, or feeling that we must rush to the defense of The Book of Mormon by bashing the Bible’s validity to bits, Mormons should be welcoming a discussion on this scripture. We should be saying “AMEN! Any man who counterfeits scripture should have these plagues cast upon him, and any man who takes from God’s word should have these punishments!”

Now what does this verse say regarding a perfect or divinely protected text? Absolutely nothing is said (realizing of course there may be other scriptures which are interpreted by Evangelical’s that could be used to argue this…another thread perhaps) on the subject. In fact this verse says just the opposite by default. In this verse God reveals a punishment for the crime of either counterfeiting, or taking away from Gods word.

To distill this scripture down to its most basic parts, the following points are clear:

1)THE CRIME: Counterfeiting the Word of God.
2)THE PUNISHMENT: Plagues which the book contains.

1) THE CRIME: Taking something from the text
2) THE PUNISHMENT: God will take his name out of the book of life etc…

The question must be asked here:

Why proclaim a punishment for a crime which is not possible to commit?

If the Bible is flawless and divinely protected, then why does God have a punishment in place for people who either counterfeit the Word, or pilfer from it? What this verse more than implies is that it is entirely possible for man to do so, and the punishment of a just God will be upon him when he does. If the punishment has been defined, then the crime can be committed, so it follows that John obviously expected that men would corrupt it, since he is the one who issues the warning against it.(Whether talking about his writings or the whole Bible is really not important for this discussion).

To illustrate further:

1)THE CRIME: Thou shalt not steal
2)THE PUNISHMENT: Hell (We will say for the usaved for the sake of argument… don’t want to start another subject on this thread…haha)

God gives a commandment against stealing, but he does not turn right around and make it an impossibility…Instead he affixes a punishment for it…and men choose to either accept the command or suffer the punishment…in any event, God does not define punishments for crimes which are impossible to commit.

An absurd example to further make the point:

He does not say: “Thou shalt not turn thyself into a rabbit, or you will have to carry eggs in baskets for the rest of eternity!”(ok…retarded example…haha) He does not bother saying this because nobody has the power to commit the “crime” of turning themselves into a rabbit! No need for a law there!

In summary:

If it was impossible for a man to counterfeit his word and if the text were protected from alteration or deletion, then this scripture would say so, and a punishment for an impossible crime would not need to be defined.

Instead, Revelation 22:18-19 is a warning of divine punishment against men who would do it

[prisonchaplain]

Just as FYI, it is true that most evangelical Christians interpret this passage in the way you describe. However, in this case, the LDS argument that the warning, in context, specifically applies to John's revelation is a valid one.

Christian belief that the canon is closed, ironically, is based on tradition and history. We accept the canonical councils decisions as God-given, and have found no writings since the late first century that warrant inclusion. So, the feeling is that after nearly 2000 years, it seems evident that the canon is closed.

Professor Craig Blomberg (Denver Seminary), in his discussion with Professor Stephen Robinson (BYU), admits that there is no text of Scripture that absolutely closes the canon. Further, theoretically, more Scripture could be found to add. However, like me, he's fairly confident that we're done with expanding the Scriptures.

[snipe123]

Just as FYI, it is true that most evangelical Christians interpret this passage in the way you describe. However, in this case, the LDS argument that the warning, in context, specifically applies to John's revelation is a valid one.

Christian belief that the canon is closed, ironically, is based on tradition and history. We accept the canonical councils decisions as God-given, and have found no writings since the late first century that warrant inclusion. So, the feeling is that after nearly 2000 years, it seems evident that the canon is closed.

Professor Craig Blomberg (Denver Seminary), in his discussion with Professor Stephen Robinson (BYU), admits that there is no text of Scripture that absolutely closes the canon. Further, theoretically, more Scripture could be found to add. However, like me, he's fairly confident that we're done with expanding the Scriptures.
[/b]

Hey PC,

Yes, I realize that serious scholars recognize the meaning of this scripture in the way you describe and that the closed cannon is largely based on tradition and councils etc...having this scripture quoted to me more often than any other (as a missionary and since) as an objection to the LDS belief, tells me that the average reader of the Bible and a whole lot of preachers, are teaching this scripture in a way that the author did not intend...I thought it was important to make a point (beyond the six usual ones) that seemed to suggest John meant just the opposite...that man would alter his words, and GOd would punish him for doing it...

[prisonchaplain]

Isaac, your point is valid, and, yes, your observations are correct. I grew up in the church, and must have learned the "don't add to the Bible" warning several times. It was not until I encountered LDS beliefs in a well-presented way, that I had to look closer, and realize that John could not have meant the biblical canon, as it wasn't done yet.

By way of explanation, though--most Christians have never encountered Jesus-followers who believe in an open canon. So, the first reaction is naturally, "Wait...we're not supposed to add or take away from the Bible, are we?"

Bottom-line: Your analysis is right on. I just wasn't sure if you were aware that many of "us" know that on this, you are right. :-)

[snipe123]

Isaac, your point is valid, and, yes, your observations are correct. I grew up in the church, and must have learned the "don't add to the Bible" warning several times. It was not until I encountered LDS beliefs in a well-presented way, that I had to look closer, and realize that John could not have meant the biblical canon, as it wasn't done yet.

By way of explanation, though--most Christians have never encountered Jesus-followers who believe in an open canon. So, the first reaction is naturally, "Wait...we're not supposed to add or take away from the Bible, are we?"

Bottom-line: Your analysis is right on. I just wasn't sure if you were aware that many of "us" know that on this, you are right. :-)
[/b]

Oh PC! How refreshing! I think I am still recovering from two years of constantly being beat up over this issue in Texas...seemed like I had to hear this if not every day, then atleast a few times a week...and many times since...glad there are Christians out there who understand this...does not make them believe The Book of Mormon of course, but if they are open to the idea that a closed cannon is not a biblical concept, but a traditional one, then perhaps they could have less fear in examining the merits of Josephs claims...

[a-train]

Many Jews are still clinging to the Torah as a closed canon based on Deuteronomy 4:2-3.

It is a theme throughout the scriptural history of the world that there has always existed the temptation to reject living oracles while proclaiming the validity of past prophets.

I assume many accepted teachings handed from Adam, Seth, or Enoch who rejected Noah. Abraham tells us that contemporaries of his believed in Noah, but rejected current teaching. Israel whole-heartedly accepted Abraham and Isaac whom they never knew, but struggled with Moses. A great many Jews believed in Moses and the Torah, but rejected the prophets, most poignantly of course was Jesus.

Different sects of faith ardently defended Moses and the Prophets, but rejected the Messiah Himself. It is further evident that within the life of the Apostles there were those who accepted Christ, but rejected certain disciples.

Satan's work is just as engaged today as it ever was. He need not convince us to reject the Gospel News of ancient history if he can get us to reject the LORD's will in our life today. It mattered not what faith in Adam's testimony the antediluvians had when Noah entered the ark. I can pay all the lip-service to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and the work of God in them, but if I fail to abide the work of God through living oracles today, it is all pointless.

-a-train

[prisonchaplain]

A-train, it's interesting that Jews believe their canon is closed. I've been led to believe that Jews highly revere the Talmud (a commentary), and also asteem commentaries on the Talmud, commentaries on the commentaries on the Talmud, etc.

Further, when a rabbi is asked counsel about an important manner, he usually will bring the issue up with the other rabbis in the community. In a sense, they are the living oracles.

[Doctor Steuss]

Since only 52.8% of the verses are variant free in the extant manuscripts of the Apocalypse of John (aka: “Revelation”), and there is an average of 5.1 variants per a page, I’d say there are a lot of people that are going to be punished.

[a-train]

Since only 52.8% of the verses are variant free in the extant manuscripts of the Apocalypse of John (aka: “Revelation”), and there is an average of 5.1 variants per a page, I’d say there are a lot of people that are going to be punished.


[/b]

And the better question for us is which of the variants to accept as the original.
-a-train

[prisonchaplain]

Good bit of humor hear about textual variants and the command not to mess with John's Revelation. Nevertheless, the book is part of the canon for LDS, and nearly all branches of Christianity. We tend to accept those variants our translators have given to us. However, of course, we'd be wise not to ground a particular doctrine upon a variant that's proven controversial.

... That's why I gave up snake handling. :-)