You're simply trying to hard - the greek is interesting and determining the referent of pronouns is almost always a challenge in both Greek and English.dwight92070 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 10:52 pmYes, they are both referred to as "He". That's the point. The translators knew that and translated it accordingly. "He" is more than implied. It wouldn't even make sense without it. Since when does the word of God need to emphasize certain words to give them more import? No, the Lord and His Christ are "the thing". There would be no reign without them. You are correct - being the same person is not the consequence of the reign. It's the other way around - the reign is the consequence of who the Lord and His Christ are. He -both the Lord and His Christ- will reign forever. Actually the text makes it very clear and rational to see that "He" is Both of them. The grammar makes no such suggestion that it is only Christ's reign. Just the opposite. It suggests that it is the reign of both of them, and yet refers to them as "He". There is no co-regency in the Godhead. There is only one God. We know God does not share His sovereignty with a man, so your interpretation cannot be correct.darinhouston wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 5:13 pmThey aren't both referred to as He. Actually, the way the greek is used, there is no word for "he" in the explicit text - it is implied by the form of the verb, but it is not being emphasized as having any import in the text. The reign itself is the thing and the likely consequence of that isn't that they are the same person (an irrational assumption from the text) but the context of Revelation being about Christ and the grammar of the sentence suggest it is "Christ's reign" that is being referred to by "he" (if at all) but that there is a co-regency of God and Messiah over the world, the Messiah having a delegated or derivative authority as suggested in Luke - being given the throne of David. I also believe that, coincidentally, Luke is the only other place in Scripture using the phrase in this sentence of the "reign."dwight92070 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 2:11 pmRevelation 11:15 - " ... The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and HE will reign forever."
Who is HE that will reign forever? Obviously the answer is "our Lord ... and His Christ;"
So God the Father and Christ the Son are jointly referred to as "He".
Does that tell you anything?
Of course, they are ONE. They are God together. They are God individually.
I'm not so sure I agree with them, but I have also seen commentators suggest (in light of the connection between this and the prophecy in Luke) that the "Lord" here is a reference to Jesus and "his Christ" being a reference to David - since David had the throne and God gave it to Jesus. Interesting thought to consider - I haven't spent any time considering it, however.
The same sentence construction is used in Revelation 22:3:
"There will no longer be any curse; and the throne (only one throne here) of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His (both God and the Lamb's) bond-servants will serve Him (both God and the Lamb); they will see His (both God and the Lamb's) face, and His (both God and the Lamb's) name will be on their foreheads."
But, with respect to Rev 22, the use of the word "throne" is often not referring just to a piece of furniture but to the CONCEPT of rule. They are both ruling - one at the right hand of the other. One has dominion over all (God) and the other has derived and bestowed dominion over earth (the Lamb). They are both "at the throne" and in the sense used it is one rule - one throne. They aren't the same person by any reasonable theology. And suggesting a single pronoun would lead to that conclusion and it's certainly not an orthodox trinitarian position to suggest they are one and the same to the point that they would use a singular pronoun to refer to both of them - in fact, the most common proof for trinitarians is when plural pronouns are used for God.