The Use of kaiv in Revelation 11,1 391 to; qusiasthvrion kai; tou;" proskunou'nta" ejn aujtw/' as, ‘and the altar and the ones who are worshipping in it’) (29). This conclusion derives very simply from the assumption that the kai in question apparently functions as a normal coordinating conjunction. Though this translation has merit — in that it is syntactically valid — it is my contention that contextual factors mitigate against such a reading. I suggest that the kaiv in question functions epexegetically (hence, the translation: ‘that is, the altar and the ones who are worshipping in it’) (30), and it serves to introduce ‘the altar’ and ‘the worshippers’ as component parts of ‘the temple of God’. Consequently, it is first necessary to now establish the proper referent to ‘the altar’ and ‘the worshippers’ in order to defend this reading (31). If taken in a literalistic sense, to; qusiasthvrion must refer to the altar of incense in the holy place (32). This is supported first by the use of to;n nao;n in 11,1. For, the regular use of naos in the NT seemingly restricts the meaning to the temple building (33). Furthermore, John’s description in the latter part of 11,1b links ‘the altar’ with ‘those who worship ejn aujtw/' (in it — i.e., the temple) (34) by the connective kaiv (and). Thus, the altar is more naturally the one within the temple (35). The altar, however, though definitely intended to be identified with the altar of incense within the temple, is not to be understood as literally referencing the actual altar. For, we have already established that ‘the temple’ is best understood metaphorically in terms of the righteous and not a literal building. If so, then may not its constituent parts similarly be used metaphorically to represent components of the righteous? That this is merited receives justification from the fact that the reference to ‘the worshippers’ unambiguously references members of the righteous community. Further- more, if ‘the altar’ were meant to represent an inanimate entity, then one must (29) Such is the translation offered by: BARNHOUSE, Revelation, 192; CAIRD, Revelation, 130; A.Y. COLLINS, The Apocalypse (NTM 22; Wilmington, DE 1979) 68; HARRINGTON, Apocalypse, 151; E.W. HENGSTENBERG, The Revelation of St John (Cherry Hill, NJ 1972) 394; H. HOEKSEMA, Behold, He Cometh! (Grand Rapids 1969) 361; P.E. HUGHES, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids 1990) 120; MICHAELS, Revelation, 137; J.A. SEISS, The Apocalypse (New York 1917) 155; STEFANOVIC, Revelation, 335; THOMAS, Revelation, 90; WALVOORD, Revelation, 175; WILCOCK, I Saw Heaven, 103. (30) This translation is similar to that offered by Aune who renders kaiv as “including” (Revelation, II, 577). (31) Surprisingly, most commentators fail to provide even a brief discussion of these items. Some briefly address the reference to the worshippers. Those who address both include: AUNE, Revelation, II, 593-598; BEALE, Revelation, 553-571; STEFANOVIC, Revelation, 336-338; THOMPSON, Revelation, 124; YEATTS, Revelation, 191. (32) See: BAUCKHAM, Climax, 268; MOUNCE, Revelation, 214. THOMPSON, however, dissents (Revelation, 124). (33) See: BAUCKHAM, Climax, 268; BEALE, Revelation 561-562; KEENER, Revelation, 288; STEFANOVIC, Revelation, 337. (34) See note 38 below. (35) Charles contends that to; qusiasthvrion generally refers to the altar of burnt- offering (R.H. CHARLES, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John with Introduction, Notes and Indices [ICC; Edinburgh 1920] II, 277). Though this is true, the context mitigates against this conclusion. For, if the worshippers are ‘in’ the temple, then it stands to reason that the altar does as well.