Return to Answer

Revelation 4-21 doesn't have any red lettering at all, which correlates at least indirectly to the fact that a popular interpretation of Revelation reads this same section as future events. This interpretation is especially popular among those with premillennialist views, and many of those with premillennialist views focus extra on preserving a word-for-word, literal rendering of the text, which is the first two of the NASB's main goals. Therefore, because of the high popularity of this interpretation of Revelation and the link between those who support it with those who have strong sola Scriptura literalis values, I think it's fair to guess that the NASB translators might have had this particular interpretation of Revelation in mind. And if they did, they would have also viewed chapter 4 as a major transition in the book. Yet even if they held to a different one, most other interpretations view chapter 4 as at least some kind of major turning point (the μετα ταυτα makes it pretty clear). This correlation is indirect: if someone interpreted 4-21 as strictly future events, they would not necessarily come to the same conclusion as the NASB translators did in 4:1. Nevertheless, if they had held to this interpretation, I believe it would have guided their translation in 4:1.

Revelation 4-21 doesn't have any red lettering at all, which correlates at least indirectly to the fact that a popular interpretation of Revelation reads this same section as future events. This interpretation is especially popular among those with premillennialist views, and many of those with premillennialist views focus extra on preserving a word-for-word, literal rendering of the text, which is the first two of the NASB's main goals. Therefore, because of the high popularity of this interpretation of Revelation and the link between those who support it with those who have strong sola Scriptura literalis values, I think it's fair to guess that the NASB translators might have had this particular interpretation of Revelation in mind. And if they did, they would have also viewed chapter 4 as a major transition in the book. Yet even if they held to a different one, most other interpretations view chapter 4 as at least some kind of major turning point (the μετα ταυτα makes it pretty clear). This correlation is indirect: if someone interpreted 4-21 as strictly future events, they would not necessarily come to the same conclusion as the NASB translators did in 4:1. Nevertheless, if they had held to this interpretation, I believe it would have guided their translation in 4:1.

###Possible NASB Reasoning For the NASB translators, I'm guessing that the reason for "who" the voice is ultimately has a lot to do with "when" in the book it's speaking. I.e., when the NASB translators were deciding whether to put red lettering in this passage, I'm guessing that their final conclusion on "who" the voice is stems largely from "when"/"where" in the book this passage occurs within their outline of Revelation [which is a respectable conclusion, although I personally disagree with it].

###My Own Interpretation Given all that, I personally believe it's definitely Christ speaking in 4:1. I see it as a major connection to the three verses before it and a key conclusion which links 1:10-11 to 3:20. It's like, between the lines, John is wrapping up the intro and saying, "Now the good stuff. THIS is what He showed me."

###EDIT

Possible NASB Reasoning

For the NASB translators, I'm guessing that the reason for "who" the voice is ultimately has a lot to do with "when" in the book it's speaking. I.e., when the NASB translators were deciding whether to put red lettering in this passage, I'm guessing that their final conclusion on "who" the voice is stems largely from "when"/"where" in the book this passage occurs within their outline of Revelation [which is a respectable conclusion, although I personally disagree with it].

My Own Interpretation

Given all that, I personally believe it's definitely Christ speaking in 4:1. I see it as a major connection to the three verses before it and a key conclusion which links 1:10-11 to 3:20. It's like, between the lines, John is wrapping up the intro and saying, "Now the good stuff. THIS is what He showed me."

EDIT

As Susan pointed out, ὁ νικων could be a pendent nominative instead of just the subject. If it is, that means that it's pointing out that ἀυτω ["him"] is the topic of the sentence, not the literal subject of the verb: the "I" in δωσω ["I'll give"]. That's how Wallace interprets it in his grammar book too. I'll open it for debate in another question because I still have some more ideas about it.

As Susan pointed out, ὁ νικων could be a pendent nominative instead of just the subject. If it is, that means that it's pointing out that ἀυτω ["him"] is the topic of the sentence, not the literal subject of the verb: the "I" in δωσω ["I'll give"]. That's how Pastor Wallace interprets it in his grammar book too. I'll open it for debate in another question because I still have some more ideas about it.

Also, I forgot to mention that Pastor Brighton argues that it's the "Son of Man" speaking in 4:1, and he, like most people, interprets the "Son of Man" to be "Christ". (His commentary is my personal favorite for Revelation.)